All News (Page 10)

Three people were killed, and five were wounded in a school shooting in the central Philippines, Philippine police said on Monday.

Police said the two suspects have been arrested after the shooting at the San Jose National High School in the city of Tacloban in Leyte province.

The shooting occurred at approximately 9:00 a.m. inside the school in Barangay San Jose, the Tacloban City Police Office said, adding that an investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances behind the incident.

Tacloban police chief Noelito Getigan told reporters that the suspects used a .38-caliber and 9mm firearm in the shooting.

One suspect, a minor and Grade 9 student, was arrested shortly after the incident, while the other later surrendered to authorities, Getigan said.

Wounded victims taken for treatment

Police said the victims have been transported to nearby medical facilities for treatment, while additional personnel have been deployed at the school to ensure the safety of students, staff, parents, and the surrounding community.

Authorities urged the public not to disseminate unverified information and to cooperate with investigators.

The incident is unusual in the Philippines, where school shootings happen only sporadically.

In July 2022, a gunman opened fire at an Ateneo de Manila University law school graduation ceremony in Quezon City, killing three people, including former Lamitan City mayor Rose Furigay.

Former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Ronen Bar was hastily evacuated from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) following a warning of a possible Iranian-directed attack on him.

Bar was in the UAE with his wife, Dafna Bar-Agassi, to attend a special security conference hosted by UAE Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan (AbZ).

The conference was attended by senior officials from the security, intelligence, and decision-making systems from various countries around the world.

During Bar’s stay in the UAE, an unusual security alert was received, raising concerns about his safety and a possible Iranian attack targeting him, according to Israeli journalist Michael Shemesh. Following the warning, it was decided to immediately evacuate Bar and his wife from the country and fly them back to Israel.

The details of the event and the evacuation were kept under a heavy veil of secrecy and have not been revealed until now.

Continued to engage with public after retirement from Shin Bet

Since his retirement as head of the Shin Bet, Bar has continued to engage in various public initiatives.

In February, Israeli public broadcaster KAN News reported that he was working to promote the establishment of a school for political leadership, a move that aroused criticism in the political system.

The Spanish parliament received an unusual question from lawmakers of the far-right Vox party in late May: Was Madrid prepared to respond to a potential Moroccan attack using Israeli-designed SpyX suicide drones, now being manufactured domestically through a joint venture between Morocco’s Royal Armed Forces and Israeli firm BlueBird Aero Systems? 

The question was framed as a national security concern. It is better understood as a measurement. When a NATO member’s legislature begins formally calculating whether it can defend against Israeli-made weapons now produced on the other side of the Strait of Gibraltar, the Abraham Accords’ defense technology transfer has moved well beyond diplomacy into the geometry of regional power. 

The 2026 fiscal year has produced a stark divergence in defense philosophies between Rabat and Algiers. Morocco has embraced a qualitative modernization strategy, allocating $17.1 billion toward advanced technology and the creation of a domestic defense industry through joint ventures with Israeli firms, including BlueBird Aero Systems. 

Algeria, by contrast, has committed a record $25 billion to its military, representing 20.6% of the national budget and nearly 9 percent of GDP. The spending exceeds Algeria’s combined education and health budgets and is financed through a central government deficit surpassing 10%. 

Algeria’s defense spending as a share of GDP is now the second-highest in the world, trailing only Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine, Algeria is not fighting a war. The force it is building exists in direct response to the capabilities Morocco is acquiring, which are substantially Israeli in origin. 

On the outskirts of Casablanca, in the Benslimane industrial zone, Israel Aerospace Industries subsidiary BlueBird Aero Systems inaugurated a dedicated production facility for its SpyX loitering munitions, the first such factory anywhere in North Africa or the Middle East outside Israel. 

The Israeli-designed man-portable systems feature a 50-kilometer operational radius, up to 120 minutes of loiter time, terminal dive speeds exceeding 250 kilometers per hour, and a 2.5-kilogram warhead optimized for precision strikes against armored vehicles, command posts, and high-value targets. 

The SpyX slots into a broader multi-layered air defense network that includes Israel’s Barak MX, China’s FD-2000B, and the Sky Dragon 50. Morocco has also acquired Harpoon Block II missiles from France and a string of American platforms including F-16 fighter jets, AH-64 Apache helicopters, and HIMARS rocket launchers. 

The total picture is a military that has leapt from a Soviet-era Maghrebi force to a multi-domain precision-strike architecture within five years, anchored by American systems, integrated through Israeli technology, and now producing its own loitering munitions domestically. 

As Algiers remains tethered to Cold War-era Russian hardware and Iranian-aligned proxies, Rabat is harvesting the dividends of its strategic pivot. The Syria angle has sharpened this assessment considerably: a senior Algerian brigadier general and some 500 soldiers from the Algerian army and Polisario militias were detained fighting on behalf of pro-Iranian forces, and during investigations they allegedly admitted to receiving training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah. This has provided Rabat with what it sees as definitive evidence of the Iran-Hezbollah-Polisario axis, vindicating Morocco’s 2018 decision to sever ties with Tehran. 

The Algerian military establishment is committing a quarter of the national budget to defense while running a deficit that will consume foreign currency reserves within a projected three to five years at current spending rates. This is not a sustainable long-term approach. It is a regime making a short-term political calculation: that the army’s institutional primacy must be demonstrated, and Morocco’s Israeli-equipped modernization must be met quantitatively even when it cannot be matched qualitatively. 

Algeria’s procurement priorities are focused specifically on countering Morocco’s Israeli capabilities, emphasizing multi-layered air defense, electronic warfare, long-range precision munitions, and anti-drone warfare systems. In practice, this means Algeria is spending $25 billion to develop countermeasures to systems that did not exist in Moroccan inventory five years ago and whose most advanced variants are still being transferred under the 2026 Israel-Morocco joint military action plan. 

The Spanish parliament question and Algeria’s record defense budget are measuring the same reality from different angles. The Abraham Accords have produced the Maghreb’s most consequential defense technology shift in a generation, generating responses across the regional architecture – from Algerian procurement planning to NATO legislative debate. 

Washington should treat this not as an instability risk to be managed through restraint but as a strategic success requiring active deepening. Morocco and Israel signed their joint military work plan for 2026 in early January, structuring year-round military dialogue, joint industrial projects, force-development exercises, and strategic alignment on evolving threats, with Israeli officials now describing Morocco as Jerusalem’s most vital security partner on the African continent. 

Washington should formalize that triangle into a named trilateral security framework, begin preliminary discussions on Morocco’s long-term access to advanced American systems commensurate with its demonstrated institutional reliability, and explicitly condition US-Algeria engagement on verifiable de-escalation of the military posture directed at a US-aligned partner. 

Algeria is spending itself toward a fiscal crisis to counter Israeli weapons. Washington should make clear which side of that contest it is on.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx

Innovative US military technology company Anduril Industries, which raised money recently at a $61 billion valuation, is currently meeting with a number of senior officials in Israel to establish a local operation that will deal with sales to the Ministry of Defense and R&D for its global products, “Globes” has learned. At this stage, the US company, managed by serial entrepreneur Palmer Luckey, is operating cautiously, conducting market research and examining various ways to establish the operation and whether to do so through acquisitions or organically.

Several candidates have been shortlisted to manage the company’s operations in Israel — security forces veterans — and Anduril is in the final stages of finalizing the appointment of one of them to the position.

YItz (Yitzhak) Applbaum, chairman of the Kinetica defense-tech fund, who knows several of the company’s senior executives says, “Anduril conducts market research in various countries — they enter the markets carefully and thoroughly. This is a company that was built outside the box — organically and through acquisitions and they understand that they can grow in Israel in any of these ways.”

Anduril was founded as a company to develop a command and control system for the US-Mexico border and later expanded to all security products — including drones, interceptors, cruise missiles, UAVs and even fighter jets. After the successful IPO of SpaceX, Anduril also plans an IPO and international expansion will serve this aim well. After receiving a valuation of $61 billion, the company is building on an IPO at a valuation of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Anduril has yet to acquire a large company outside the US, apart from a startup in the field of edge computing and tactical communications in Ireland. In November, Anduril and UAE-based EDGE Group launched a joint venture to manufacture tail-sitting vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) drones with a hybrid-electric propulsion system dubbed Omen.

The partnership is designed to accelerate the development and production of advanced unmanned platforms for military and civilian applications and will see the creation of a dedicated facility in the UAE to handle manufacturing, sales, and long-term support for global projects.

The vast majority of its acquisitions have been made in the US, for amounts that have never been disclosed: Palmer acquired a company in the field of satellite intelligence; a radar manufacturer; a drone and autonomous aircraft company; a manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); infrared sensors and a manufacturer of rocket engines and solid fuel.

The company’s list of investors is long and includes over 200 venture capital funds and private investors, the main ones being: Andreessen Horowitz — one of the main shareholders of Wiz — General Catalyst and Altimeter Capital.

Jerusalem Post Staff contributed to this report

US President Donald Trump warned Iran to stop supporting proxies in Lebanon, warning that he could resume strikes on the country should they fail to do so in a Sunday Truth Social post.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble,” Trump wrote, implying Hezbollah.

“If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again,” he added.

Additionally, Trump warned Iran not to close the Strait of Hormuz in an overnight conversation, Fox News reported Sunday.

“You close it, and you won’t have a country,” Trump said he told Iranian officials, according to the Fox News report. “You won’t even make it back to your f***ing country.”

“We may take over the Strait, if we have to,” Trump commented to the channel.

“I’ll blow the s*** out of them,” he added.

Trump increasingly looking to Syria to fight Hezbollah

Moreover, Trump once again floated the idea of letting Syria fight Hezbollah during the call, reportedly being of the belief that its forces would be more precise than the IDF.

Trump first publicly suggested letting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa fight Hezbollah in Israel’s place at the sidelines of the G7 summit in France, after having criticized Israel’s strikes as being too inaccurate.

Outgoing Colombian President Gustavo Petro claimed that Israel had fixed the presidential elections that took place on Sunday in a post to X/Twitter, following his loss to right-wing candidate Abelardo De La Espriella.

“I warned that the Bautista brothers’ software was vulnerable, according to the 2018 State Council ruling, and that it should be replaced with publicly available software,” Petro wrote on X, adding that he had requested an audit of the software ahead of the elections, but that it had not been allowed.

“Well, today we have evidence of a change in the IP addresses of several servers belonging to the National Registry. This means that the software was compromised, and others entered data for polling stations and voting centers,” he said. “The only entity in the world capable of doing that is the State of Israel.”

Petro added that he plans to pass the information along to the judges as soon as possible so they can conduct “the expert audit of the electoral software that has not yet been performed” while the votes are being counted.

“I request a recount of all polling stations and a recount of all votes, along with a study of the vulnerabilities in the electoral software and the polling stations that were affected.”

Petro urged the public to remain calm so that a recount that “truly reflects the will of the people” can take place, and that “before we succumb to hatred, it is time to seek a national dialogue between the fundamental political currents that divide Colombian society in half, regardless of the actual outcome of the recount.

Who is Abelardo De La Espriella?

De La Espriella, 47, has proposed a tough crackdown on crime, an end to peace talks with armed groups, and a boost to Colombia’s oil and gas sector.

Iván Cepeda Castro, 63, a leftist competitor in the presidential race, vowed to continue Petro’s policies, and is a former rebel and the country’s first leftist president.

These policies include state pension payments for the poor, union-backed labor reforms, peace talks with armed groups that have fought the state for decades, and a moratorium on new oil projects.

De La Espriella blames Petro for the country’s economic and security woes and has vowed to lower taxes and reduce the size of the state by up to 40%, but has said he will preserve Petro’s 23% increase in the minimum wage, along with other popular social measures.

400,000 voters turned in blank ballots in protest, Cepeda contests results

Whoever wins will grapple with high public debt and a divided Congress, which could stymie reform proposals.

Some 400,000 voters turned in blank ballots, usually seen as a protest vote.

Cepeda said on Sunday that he will await a final, ballot-by-ballot check of an initial presidential vote count, saying his campaign is challenging results from some 33,000 ballot boxes.

Cepeda notched 48.7% support, data from the country’s national registry office showed, less than 1% behind right-wing lawyer Abelardo De La Espriella, who won 49.65%. The difference between the two men is equivalent to some 246,000 votes.

The head of the national registrar, Hernan Penagos, said separately that verification was beginning at a municipal level and would soon extend across the country. A final count, overseen by notaries and judges, is required by Colombian law.

Security officials are considering allowing Lebanon’s army to take control of a Hezbollah tunnel compound in the southern Lebanese village of Tebnit, N12 reported on Sunday, citing sources familiar with the matter.  

According to the sources, the idea was raised in recent days in political and military discussions, and may continue to be discussed in upcoming talks on Tuesday. 

Israel believes that transferring the responsibility to Lebanon’s army could serve as a test of its ability and willingness to act against Hezbollah, said N12. 

“This could be a test for the ability and motivation of the Lebanese army to deal publicly and in an unprecedented way with Hezbollah,” said an Israeli source. 

Security officials note, however, that the Lebanese army has in the past struggled to act against the terror organization, said the report.

Tebnit a focal point for IDF activity

Tebnit has become a focal point for IDF activity in southern Lebanon over the past week. According to Israeli intelligence, between 30 and 40 Hezbollah terrorists are operating in a large underground compound. 

While IDF forces are operating above the compound, ceasefire efforts between the US and Iran have prevented them from entering it, added N12. 

The compound consists of a large network of tunnels, and its destruction is a central effort of military forces in the area, according to the IDF. 

The military revealed on Sunday another underground compound in the village of Majdal Zoun, added N12, about 10 kilometers from the Israeli border. 

The compound, built at a depth of 29 meters and over 200 meters in length, has 12 rooms, blast doors, four missile launch sites, and hundreds of weapons, according to the IDF. 

Four soldiers were killed over the weekend when a Hezbollah strike hit their tank near Tebnit in southern Lebanon. Their deaths do not prove diplomacy is futile or justify an open-ended war, but they do demonstrate the gap between the White House’s description of its memorandum of understanding with Iran and the threat Israel still confronts on its northern border.

The agreement’s ambition is understandable. After months of regional fighting, governments have an interest in stopping escalation, protecting civilians, and restoring commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. But an agreement that requires Israel, in practice, to stop operating against Hezbollah before its threat has been credibly reduced does not fully account for Israeli security needs.

The four soldiers killed in the tank incident, alongside the soldier killed and 13 wounded in a separate Hezbollah barrage, are a painful reminder that the northern front has not been transformed by a declaration. Hezbollah still has the capacity and willingness to attack Israeli forces.

The IDF’s continued presence in southern Lebanon is not a theoretical preference or negotiating tactic, but rather, it reflects the assessment that border communities cannot rely on promises alone.

The memorandum’s first clause calls for the “immediate and permanent termination” of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. Yet Israel and Hezbollah are not parties to the US-Iran agreement.

More importantly, the public text contains no detailed arrangement for Hezbollah’s disarmament, no specific enforcement mechanism against its rearmament, and no verified security architecture that would allow Israel to know attacks on its northern communities will not resume behind a ceasefire’s language.

A ceasefire is not a substitute for disarmament

A ceasefire, important as it is, cannot serve as a substitute for dismantling the military infrastructure that made it necessary.

US President Donald Trump has marketed the MOU as a broad solution. “This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region,” he wrote, adding that the United States expects a “complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah and Israel.”

In other posts, Trump argued that “the war has diminished Iran,” declared Tehran “finished,” and emphasized that no tolls should be imposed in the Strait of Hormuz during the 60-day deadline to reach an agreement.

Those statements identify Washington’s priorities: reducing the risk of a wider war, reopening a crucial maritime route, and claiming diplomatic success. None are objectionable, but they are not identical to Israel’s immediate concern, which is whether Hezbollah can still threaten the North the day after a ceasefire is announced.

The deal is a framework, not a completed peace agreement

Trump’s language also shows why the deal is a framework, not a completed peace agreement. He has said the sides will “play out the 60 days,” during which they are supposed to negotiate the central unresolved questions. The fate of Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile, sanctions relief, the future administration of Hormuz, and a final nuclear arrangement have been deferred.

The MOU offers Iran immediate benefits and makes broader commitments contingent on later talks, while the nuclear issue appears only after provisions on ending operations and restoring economic access.

On Sunday, conservative political commentator Mark Levin said on Fox News: “Israel has a right to defend itself without us telling them how to do it.” That means Israel should not reject diplomacy or dismiss American interests, but it should insist that a durable arrangement be judged by whether it prevents Hezbollah from attacking, rebuilding, and again placing the North under threat.

It also means tying any lasting cessation of operations to concrete, verifiable security conditions, i.e., removing Hezbollah’s military infrastructure from the border area, effective monitoring, consequences for violations, and Israel’s retained ability to respond when an imminent threat emerges. It is the least of what Israeli leadership owes its own citizens.

The United States remains Israel’s indispensable ally, and its effort to avert a regional conflagration deserves serious engagement. Yet partnership cannot mean Israel’s security policy is subordinated to the timeline of an American negotiation with Iran. The North has paid too high a price for that.

A deal that protects shipping lanes but leaves Israel constrained against an armed Hezbollah is not yet a regional security agreement; it is unfinished diplomacy. Israel must ensure it is not asked to bear the risks when it has already failed on the ground.

Fifty-four people were injured, and another 18 were missing after an explosion at Qatar’s core LNG processing site of Ras Laffan on Sunday, Qatar’s Interior Ministry said in a statement.

An incident during the start-up of operations at Ras Laffan Industrial City resulted in an explosion and fire at the Barzan local gas supply facility on Sunday evening, QatarEnergy said in a statement.

Emergency response teams were deployed to contain the fire, which was now under control, it said.

The interior ministry attributed the explosion to a “technical accident” and said there was no leak that posed a threat to public safety.

It said the Qatari International Search and Rescue Group, in cooperation with the civil defense teams, was conducting search operations for the 18 missing people.

A loud boom followed by fire, many feared dead

QatarEnergy did not indicate whether the explosion had caused any damage to the plant, which supplies gas to the domestic market.

A Reuters witness earlier reported that a loud boom was heard in the capital Doha, south of the Ras Laffan facility.

The first session of peace talks between the US and Iran in Switzerland has concluded, mediators Qatar and Pakistan announced in a joint statement early on Monday morning. 

The talks were conducted in a positive and constructive atmosphere, the countries said, despite the fact that the Iranian team walked out of negotiations Sunday night in protest of threats by US President Donald Trump to restart Iran strikes unless the Strait of Hormuz is reopened, as reported by Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.

Additionally, both Iran and the US have agreed to establish a high-level committee for political oversight during future talks, said the joint statement. 

Chief negotiators will regularly report to the high-level committee, which has agreed to establish a roadmap to reach a final deal within 60 days. 

The US and Iran also agreed to the creation of a “deconfliction cell,” through which the termination of military operations in Lebanon would be assured. 

‘Just the beginning’

The talks began after representatives of the United States, Pakistan, and Qatar spoke to the press after a quadrilateral meeting, also including Iran, at the Bürgenstock mountain resort in Switzerland, earlier on Sunday. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif launched the talks by thanking Trump for his efforts that led to them.

“We are witnessing a great day that will lead to world peace,” said Sharif. “We thank Trump for his active vision that led to direct negotiations and look forward to fruitful negotiations between the United States and Iran that will lead to results. I am confident that a meaningful document can be reached that will lay the foundations for lasting peace.”

According to Maariv, a source told Tasnim that the Iranian delegation declined to participate in a group photo with the US delegation, and that Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf refused to enter the room during the press conference.

US Vice President JD Vance began his speech with a thank-you to Trump, attributing the US president’s “leadership” for bringing the world “to this moment.”

“I want to thank the President of the United States, who sends his best to all the great leaders assembled here, because he empowered us to find a diplomatic solution to a host of issues that matter to the American people,” said Vance. “What brought us to this moment is the president’s leadership and the president’s willingness to see a Middle East that is much different 10 years from now than it was 10 years ago.”

“Through diplomacy, through working together to transform the ME where Iran and the Gulf had been at war with each other,” Vance continued. “Iran has been a driver of regional instability; now we see a future where everyone can work together to promote peace and prosperity for everyone.”

“What the president has asked us to do is turn over a new leaf,” added Vance.

Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Muhammad bin Abdulrahman Bin Jassim Al Thani described the meeting as “just the beginning” of a negotiation process.

“What is happening today in this meeting is important for the security of the region and the world,” said Al Thani. “Today’s meeting is just the beginning of the process to achieve the goals.”

“We have seen tremendous dedication and efforts from Vance, the Pakistani Prime Minister, and the Iranian Foreign Minister,” he added.

A reporter asked Vance if he had a message for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to which Vance replied that the US has “seen great progress over the last couple of days in ensuring the ceasefire holds in Lebanon.” 

“We found great partners in working with the Qataris, the Pakistanis, our friends in Israel, who were all working towards regional peace,” Vance said. “There’s still some additional wood to chop, but we’re gonna keep on working on it.”

Vance added that Trump and the US “have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world over the last few months.” 

He emphasized that Trump is “committed to a regional peace,” not just between the US and Iran.

“We’ve got a lot of work to do, we’re excited to do it,” Vance concluded. 

Vance, Sharif meet prior to start of talks

Vance and Sharif met on the sidelines of Buergenstock as the meetings were set to start. 

Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, alongside Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, meets US Vice President J.D. Vance on the sidelines of the High-Level Talks in Burgenstock, Switzerland, on the implementation of the Islamabad… pic.twitter.com/t7gcKtgsy8

— Government of Pakistan (@GovtofPakistan) June 21, 2026

In the sideline meeting, Vance refused to answer a reporter’s question about Netanyahu. 

A reporter asked Vance what his message to Netanyahu would be at the start of the meeting, but he did not respond. Notably, Vance told Fox News on Saturday that the US and Iran had a “divergence of how to accomplish” ending the war in Iran. 

Esmaeil Baghaei said that Iran would hold meetings with intermediaries Qatar and Pakistan earlier in the day, adding that the gathering in Switzerland is a follow-up on the implementation of a memorandum of understanding signed with the US this week.

Emergency session on Israel-Hezbollah conflict reportedly added to Switzerland peace talks

An emergency session to address the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has been added to the schedule of the first day of the Switzerland talks, CBS News reported on Saturday night, citing a diplomat attending the talks.

That issue will be raised during the first session of negotiations between the US and Iran, according to the diplomat.

Neither Israeli nor Hezbollah representatives will be attending the talks.

This comes as the Strait of Hormuz reportedly remains closed. According to regime-aligned outlet Fars, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy has not granted permission for any vessels to transit until further notice.

The US military had denied earlier reports of the closure and said commercial vessels were still operating.

US officials have disputed that the strait is closed and said 55 merchant ships crossed it on Saturday. 

Vessel-tracking data showing ships actively transmitting their positions broadly backs Iran’s claim that the strait is closed, with no tanker crossings recorded since Tehran announced the move on Saturday afternoon.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency, citing a source close to the negotiating team, reported that the Strait would not be reopened until a ceasefire in Lebanon was respected.

US, Iranian delegations prepare for peace talks

On Saturday, Iran’s delegation arrived in Switzerland ahead of planned talks with the US.

We welcome the arrival of the Iranian delegation in #Switzerland.

The Iranian delegation is on its way to the Bürgenstock as part of the implementation of the MoU signed between the #UnitedStates and #Iran. pic.twitter.com/5USLCr0h4H

— Swiss MFA (@SwissMFA) June 20, 2026

The delegation includes Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Iranian Parliment Speaker Mohammed-Bagher Ghalibaf.

Ghalibaf announced his arrival on X with a photo of himself standing in front of a plane bearing the hashtag “Minab 168” in English and Persian, beside the flag of the Iranian regime. 

Vance later arrived in Switzerland on Sunday for what he has said would likely be a couple of days of peace talks with Iranian officials.

Vance and his wife arrived at Emmen Air Base in Switzerland at 5:59 a.m., a vice presidential spokesperson said.

Vice President JD Vance is wheels up from Washington, D.C., en route to Switzerland 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/uEeFTnx5Dn

— Luke Schroeder (@VPPressSec) June 20, 2026

US Special Envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff have reportedly already arrived in Switzerland for the talks. 

Sharif and Pakistan’s Chief of Staff arrived in Zurich on Sunday with their delegations, Pakistan’s Prime Minister’s Office announced on X.

The meeting, originally scheduled for Friday, follows the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the US and Iran by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in France last week.

Vance and Ghalibaf digitally signed the agreement, with Trump witnessing the signing, according to the US official.

The White House published footage of the signing on an X/Twitter post on Thursday.

Sometime in the late 19th century, Otto von Bismarck, the “Iron Chancellor” of Germany, famously quipped: “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” 

And that was not a simple jealousy towards a rising and distant power. The sarcasm masked an astute observation by a great statesman. It appeared that America could make colossal political and military mistakes, face internal calamities, like the Civil War and economic crises, and yet still somehow, seemingly against reason and common sense, emerge more resilient and stronger than before.

The Chancellor suggested there was no good explanation for that phenomenon beyond pure luck being on the American side. Sure, Bismarck understood there were other reasons behind America’s success, but without luck, the result would be much different.

Yet America’s phenomenal success in the 20th and early 21st centuries is even more extraordinary. Was that pure luck again? It was not. No lucky streak may have run so long against such overwhelming odds as the events of the last century.

One commonly accepted explanation is the power of American institutions and American democracy. That answer may explain the resilience of the United States, but not the power it has projected across the entire world for more than a hundred years.

How has the country torn by many deep inherent contradictions managed for so long to remain a superpower of the entire world?

America’s unprecedented industrial base

America’s preeminence on the world stage has been a direct result of the strength of its economy and unprecedented industrial base. In the decades preceding World War I, it was becoming clear that America’s economy was unmatched in adapting existing technologies, inventing new ways to make goods, and manufacturing on the scale unseen by any industrialized country.

World War II, the war against Germany, another economic behemoth of the time, translated that economic “miracle” from industrial wonder to a strategic asset. 

When World War II is being discussed, the Battle of Britain, D-Day, and Stalingrad are often mentioned as the pivotal events of the war that turned the tide in the Allies’ favor.

What is usually missing from the discussion is the mention of America’s economic prowess that served as the backbone of the Allied victory. America could produce enough ships, tanks, airplanes, and whatever the war effort required to support the United States, the UK, and the Soviet Union.

The Lend-Lease Act was not just a critical financial vehicle to support the Allies during the war. It would mean absolutely nothing and contribute nothing unless the United States could produce millions of items of war equipment and ship them halfway across the world.

The shipbuilders in the United States kept producing more ships to transport war material from the US to the UK and then to Russia than the German submarines could sink. It is often said that Stalingrad was the war’s turning point.

Yet the Red Army, the millions of poorly trained Soviet citizens sent to death by Stalin without regard for the casualties, was being transported, fed, and kept warm by the American industrial war machine. 

The United States emerged from the ashes of World War II with its economy and industrial capacity surpassing those of any other country. Ironically, the Cold War provided a perfect opportunity for the United States to come up victorious one more time.

One may claim the United States got lucky yet again. The Cold War was a standoff between two economic systems, or to be precise, between two countries: The United States and the Soviet Union.

Not only had the United States been surpassing the Soviet Union in every aspect of their respective economies, but the very structure of the Soviet Union’s economy was highly inferior and irreparably defective.

Time – as some economists at the time had pointed out – was on the United States’ side. It is no coincidence that despite numerous political mistakes, the idiotic naivete, betrayal of friends, and tragic misunderstanding of the Soviet leadership, the United States prevailed so completely in the Cold War.

It was America’s economy and industrial base that won the struggle despite the dwellers of the White House’s persistent failure to understand the foe in the Kremlin.

American democracy has produced leaders of different caliber. Some were magnificent. Some were not so much. Most were average, perhaps no better or worse than the contemporary leaders in the rest of the world.

A common mistake is to assume and expect democracy to produce better leaders.

That is not a feature of a democratic system. But what made America different from other democratic and non democratic countries is the ability of its economy to absorb the mistakes by the country’s leaders and elites, no matter how stupid, shortsighted, naive, and consequential those mistakes were.

America grew not because of its leadership, but rather despite it. Perhaps that was the exact contradiction that made the late Chancellor pause and make the famous quip.

We are currently at the precipitous moment in history. America’s industrial base, the luck that has kept it in the blessed company of “idiots, drunkards, children,” is gone. The decades since the end of the Cold War have seen an almost complete dismemberment of what made the country so special.

The service economy, according to the believers in the “end of history”, was supposed to replace that part that made things. Making things was not worth the effort in a world devoid of conflict. Yet history did not end, and the conflict has arrived. The war with Iran has demonstrated two catastrophic realities.

The United States does not understand how to wage war, and its economy is unable to support one even against an adversary such as Iran. After a few months of conflict, the United States has almost run out of missiles.

That is just one of many “discoveries”, but perhaps the most telling one. It was not luck that made America great. And it is not luck that may make it great again. But even if it was, it appears to be running out.

The author lives and works in Silicon Valley, California. He is a founding member of San Francisco Voice for Israel.

The number of ships that passed through the Strait of Hormuz fell sharply on Sunday after Iran announced it had again closed the waterway, citing Israeli and US violations of the interim peace deal, shipping data showed.

Five vessels passed the strait on Sunday, from 26 ships spotted a day earlier, data from analytics firm Kpler showed.

These included three Very Large Crude Carriers carrying 2 million barrels of Saudi crude and fuel oil each, one of which was heading to Japan.

The data may exclude vessels that switch off their transponders while traveling in the Gulf.

Iran lifted its effective blockade of the strait last week after agreeing with the United States to extend an April ceasefire for 60 days to allow for peace negotiations, but Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Saturday declared the waterway shut once again in response to Israeli strikes in Lebanon.

Commercial vessels still operating, crude oil passing through

The US military said commercial vessels were still operating.

Among the ships that exited the strait on Saturday, three of them were VLCCs carrying crude from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iraq, while there were also three tankers carrying various oil products, the data showed.

A total of 13 ships entered the strait on Saturday, including two VLCCs, the data showed.

Gulf producers Abu Dhabi National Oil Co and Kuwait Petroleum Corp have issued tenders selling crude with the option of loading from inside and outside the Strait of Hormuz.

October 9, 2026.

Remember that date.

Just three years and two days after Hamas invaded Israeli territory in the deadliest and most horrific terror attack carried out against a Western country, committing terrible crimes against civilians and humanity.

Three years and two days ago, Israel went to war for its very survival.

This was not merely a war against Hamas. It was a war orchestrated by a sophisticated octopus whose head sits in Tehran and whose arms extend into Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Judea and Samaria. Its purpose was to destroy Israel, establish Iranian regional hegemony, and ultimately threaten the West itself.

Israel fought with extraordinary courage, creativity, and determination. It astonished its enemies and its friends alike. It did so while losing thousands of soldiers and more than two thousand civilians.

Those losses would have been far greater had Israel not protected its citizens through innovative, life-saving technologies, in contrast to its enemies, who use their own civilians as human shields.

Meanwhile, 251 Israelis were taken hostage. Some returned in coffins. Some returned in pieces. Some were buried in stages. Children and women were murdered in captivity in horrific and barbaric ways. In some cases, victims could be identified only through tiny fragments of remaining tissue, such as an eyebrow.

The world stood by. Initial sympathy quickly gave way to a global dance of interests. Pressure on Israel mounted, reaching the point of an arms embargo during the Biden administration.

Then Donald Trump was elected president, and he appeared to understand the threat. He understood that it is about the West. He understood that Tehran’s strength lies not in military superiority but in its ability to extract concessions through negotiations. He promised the Iranian people: HELP IS ON THE WAY.

For a time, it seemed he intended to keep that promise.

Then, suddenly, Trump reversed course.

Alongside the shock and disappointment, the world is asking: What happened to Trump? Why is he rushing toward an agreement while Iran humiliates American negotiators, denies progress, and hardens its demands? Why proceed even when CIA Director John Ratcliffe warns that Iran has no intention of honoring any agreement it signs?

Never before has a superpower appeared willing to sign what amounts to a surrender agreement with a country that was on the verge of defeat.

Has Trump abandoned the principles he championed for years?

In my view, the answer lies in a single date: October 9, 2026.

That is the day the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will announce its annual winner.

And Trump wants it.

He wants it as personal recognition and as a political asset ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. He wants it enough, I believe, to place American and Western interests behind his own pursuit of glory.

Perhaps he imagines that after winning the midterms, collecting the Nobel Prize in Oslo, and pocketing the more than one million dollars that comes with it, he can reverse course and return to confronting Iran.

Because he knows Iran will not cease its aggression. It will intensify it. It has no intention of abandoning its nuclear ambitions. Any pause today merely creates a more serious threat tomorrow.

Is there a greater sin than the pursuit of personal glory at the expense of a nation’s future?

Trump could have secured a place in history as the leader who helped save and reshape the Christian Western world. Instead, he appears willing to settle for a certificate from the Norwegians.

Not another Oslo

The Iranians understand this. They are squeezing Trump for concessions and demanding cash compensation for any agreement. According to reports in Arab media, the enormous sums promised to Tehran would allow it to rebuild quickly through cooperation with Russia, China, and perhaps North Korea, backed by the Qatar-Turkey axis.

While Trump focuses on Oslo, Iran prepares for war.

Facing this ideological alliance, the West may find itself with a United States unable to win ground wars and a Europe that is militarily weakened.

Trump’s gamble could cost the West its global dominance.

Perhaps he believes Israel will again be forced to fight and pay the price in soldiers, civilians, and economic damage. Convenient.

But Israel has learned from Oslo. It will not allow it to happen again.

The prophet Jeremiah wrote: “Israel is not forsaken.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unlike Trump, has been paying the price of this war for three years. He understands that Trump’s promises depend on Donald’s interests. He understands this is a point of no return with Iran, and that he chooses history over personal interest.

Trump should understand that Nobel Prizes can still be awarded for real achievements.

But if he does not change course now, he risks becoming a black stain on Western history.

And for Israel, relief and deliverance will come from another source.

For Israel is not forsaken.

The author holds a PhD in Management, is the author of The State Is Currently Unavailable: How to Make Public Services Work for Us Again, and chairs the Forum for the Galilee.

“Even if Netanyahu tells me that one plus one equals two, I won’t believe him.”

These words didn’t come from an opposition leader – though they feel exactly the same way. 

They came from Rabbi Dov Lando, the preeminent figure of the Ashkenazi haredi (ultra-Orthodox) yeshiva world, who recently declared that the time has come to bring down the government over its failure to pass the draft-exemption legislation promised to the haredi parties.

A wartime government is being threatened with collapse – not over the failure to influence the Iranian-US deal, not over the economy, or any of the genuine crises consuming the country since October 7 – but because it has not (yet) delivered a law designed to keep over 100,000 young men out of uniform while their non-haredi peers are fighting on multiple fronts.

The haredi world holds that immersion in Torah study is the real source for Israel’s security and should be viewed as a higher form of national service. 

So, in the midst of wartime, there are 100,000 men evading the draft, defying Supreme Court rulings, while their leaders call for tax revolts against the state if the draft dodgers are arrested.
Diaspora Jews have long treated Israel’s religion-state tensions as a background grievance – serious, but somehow always deferred. 

But the last few years have shown that anti-pluralism policies and rhetoric have escalated, with close collaboration between Likud and their ultra-Orthodox and far-right coalition partners.

Working hand in hand with the ultra-Orthodox parties, the government is imposing Orthodox control over marriage and divorce, conversion, kashrut, burial, and Jewish education, as well as expanding the authority of the rabbinical courts and the Chief Rabbinate.

The result is religious coercion, harm to gender equality, marginalization of non-Orthodox Judaism in Israel and the Diaspora, and the systematic and deliberate neglect of hundreds of thousands of children in ultra-Orthodox schools that do not teach mathematics, English, or civic literacy; these children are being prepared, in effect, for a life of dependence rather than contribution.

And then there is the money.

For decades, Diaspora Jewish leaders and philanthropists have responded generously to Israel’s appeals for support, under the belief that the state cannot fund its social and educational needs alone. 

But three studies published in recent months are telling.

The Israel Democracy Institute puts direct and indirect state subsidies to the ultra-Orthodox sector at a conservative NIS 35 to 37 billion for 2025 alone.

The Aaron Institute for Economic Policy at Reichman University finds that a non-haredi Jewish family in the middle socioeconomic brackets pays the state roughly NIS 1,500 net per month, while a haredi family at the same income level receives NIS 1,350 from the state.

And a study by the conservative Kohelet Policy Forum calculated that an ultra-Orthodox household receives a net average of NIS 5,983 per month from the state, while a non-ultra-Orthodox Jewish household pays a net NIS 8,842 per month – a gap of nearly NIS 15,000.

What we are looking at is not a welfare safety net stretched beyond its means. 

It is a parallel economy, underwritten by political extortion and a government that manufactures gaps rather than confronting them. Leading Israeli economists warn that Israel will collapse into a third-world economy if nothing is done.

Chief Justice Sohlberg’s home attacked

The price isn’t only financial. A few weeks ago, dozens of extremist ultra-Orthodox men attacked the home of Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg – smashing windows, damaging his car, and uprooting bushes – while the justice, his family, and grandchildren were inside. 

His wife emerged crying, saying it felt like a pogrom. Like Kristallnacht. That is what years of rabbinic incitement produce: a community taught that the law does not apply to it.

Haredi participation in Israeli democracy is now largely transactional – a vehicle for extracting resources, with no genuine identification with democratic norms, the rule of law, or Zionism. 

Across the political spectrum, this has been understood and quietly accepted for years in exchange for coalition arithmetic.

But October 7 may have changed that calculus. The ongoing war, mounting casualties, expanding fronts, and the army’s desperate need for additional soldiers have exhausted the public’s patience with mass draft evasion. 

If this growing reckoning is not translated into clear political expression – both at the Israeli ballot box and in Diaspora engagement – the future of the Zionist enterprise can no longer be taken for granted.

When Israelis go to the polls later this year, they will be voting, among other things, on whether the promises of the Declaration of Independence – freedom of religion and equality regardless of gender or religion – remain operative. 

Those promises have been steadily eroded, with Diaspora Jewry watching from the sidelines.

Diaspora Jews cannot vote. But the religion-state crisis does not politely stop at Ben-Gurion Airport. It shapes Jewish identity, Diaspora-Israel relations, and the long-term success of the Zionist project that the Diaspora has long championed. 

The urgency of this moment belongs to all of us.

Seventy-eight years after Israel’s founding, the gap between what was promised and what exists is steadily growing. This year’s elections are a chance to begin closing that gap – but only if the people who love this country, wherever they live, speak up for the values they cherish.

The writer is one of Israel’s most prominent advocates for religious freedom. He currently serves as -resident and CEO of Hiddush – For Religious Freedom and Equality.

The IDF killed two terrorists who threw Molotov cocktails near Karmei Tzur in the West Bank during a targeted counterterrorism operation on Sunday night, according to a statement released by the military. 

During the operation, soldiers spotted several terrorists burning tires and throwing Molotov cocktails towards the community, upon which the soldiers opened fire, killing two and injuring a third. 

IDF then began scanning the area for additional threats as firefighters worked to extinguish fires resulting from the tossed Molotovs and burning tires. 

No casualties were reported among the IDF.

This is a developing story. 

The announcement of an interim memorandum between the United States and Iran turned the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Évian from a test of Western coordination into a stage for a largely American diplomatic move. The agreement, presented by Washington as a framework to end hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, appeared to reduce the immediate need for a European-led maritime mission. But it did not settle the core question: Can the strait be reopened safely, durably, and in a way commercial operators, insurers, Gulf states, and European governments will accept?

In the days before and during the summit, European leaders had discussed a possible maritime role in the strait, including mine clearance, escort operations, and support for restoring freedom of navigation. The idea reflected both strategic concern and economic necessity. Hormuz is not only a regional chokepoint but a global one, and any prolonged disruption would affect oil prices, shipping costs, insurance rates, and inflation far beyond the Middle East.

Yet the US-Iran memorandum shifted the diplomatic balance. Instead of a European-supported operation moving toward implementation, the immediate focus moved to whether Washington and Tehran had found a formula that could reopen the waterway without making a foreign naval mission the central enforcement mechanism.

Strait of Hormuz situation ‘largely resolved’

Willian, a US State Department adviser for Middle East affairs who attended the G7 and asked to be identified only by his first name, argued that the European maritime track had already been overtaken by events.

“No, that’s not going to happen, and frankly, it doesn’t need to,” he told The Media Line. “The situation in the strait is largely resolved at this point.”

According to Willian, mines were only one part of the problem. The larger issue was Iran’s capacity to enforce closure or restrictions through naval assets, particularly those of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

“The mining was never the whole picture,” he said. “Iranian naval assets were the real enforcement mechanism. You clear the mines, you still have Revolutionary Guard vessels that will engage anything trying to transit. That’s the architecture they built.”

That assessment points to the central distinction now shaping the Hormuz debate. A mine-clearance operation can reduce the physical threat to vessels. But it cannot, on its own, resolve the military and political structure that allowed the strait to become contested in the first place.

For European governments, the distinction matters. A technical mission to survey, clear, and escort shipping could be justified as defensive and stabilizing. A mission operating under the threat of possible Iranian naval resistance would be far more complex. It would require rules of engagement, regional deconfliction, US coordination, Gulf basing, and political consensus that Europe has often struggled to produce quickly during high-risk Middle Eastern escalations.

Connor McLemore, an operations research analyst and board member of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit ProbabilityManagement.org, said any such operation would first depend on the security environment.

“Assuming hostilities have ceased and a discrete mining incident occurs rather than an ongoing combat operation, the first requirement would be a permissive operating environment,” McLemore told The Media Line. “While legal interpretations differ, a coalition seeking to restore freedom of navigation in an international strait could certainly argue that mine clearance operations do not necessarily require the permission of coastal states. In practice, however, cooperation from the relevant governments would make the operation safer, faster, and less politically contentious.”

European navies have relevant capabilities. France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and the Netherlands have experience in mine countermeasures, and several European states have operated in the Gulf and nearby waters. But Hormuz is not a neutral technical space. It lies between Iran and Oman, near Gulf states that would be affected directly by any escalation, and within a maritime environment where US, Iranian, Gulf, and commercial interests overlap.

McLemore, a former US naval officer with 20 years of military service, said a European-led or European-supported effort would probably not begin by trying to clear the entire strait.

“A European-led or European-supported effort would likely focus first on surveying and verifying safe transit lanes rather than clearing the entire strait,” he said. “European navies, especially Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and the UK, have deep mine countermeasures experience, and the US would likely remain important through 5 th Fleet coordination, regional relationships, mine warfare expertise, and systems such as the MK 18 unmanned underwater vehicle.”

The work would involve minehunters, unmanned underwater and surface systems, sonar surveys, remotely operated vehicles, and explosive ordnance disposal teams. The immediate goal would not necessarily be to remove every mine before traffic resumes, but to create routes that governments, shipowners, and insurers are prepared to use.

“The hard part would not just be finding and neutralizing mines. It would be creating verified safe routes that governments, shipowners, and insurers trust enough to restart traffic.”

Shipping companies and insurers are unlikely to treat a diplomatic announcement as equivalent to a restored maritime environment. They will look at actual vessel movement, residual mine risk, the behavior of Iranian naval units, the presence or absence of escorts, and whether new threats emerge after the agreement is made public.

Willian said the real diplomatic work is being handled outside Europe.

“The actual work is being done bilaterally, US and Iran, through a direct channel with Pakistan,” he said. “There’s an agreement coming that will address the strait access question in terms that both sides can live with.”

He also said public assessments of the mining threat may already be outdated.

“Part of what you’ll see in that agreement, when it’s disclosed, is that the remaining mine density is far lower than the public reporting has suggested,” he said. “The numbers being circulated are not current.”

That claim, if confirmed by events on the water, would explain why Washington may see a large European mine-clearance mission as unnecessary. If the mine threat is limited, mapped, or already reduced, the remaining problem becomes less about clearing a mined waterway and more about ensuring Iran does not reimpose restrictions through naval pressure.

McLemore cautioned that even a lower-density mine threat would not make the problem simple. Mine clearance is rarely absolute. It is a process of reducing risk to a level that governments and commercial actors consider acceptable.

“The difficulty would depend heavily on the number, type, and location of the mines. If operators do not know how many mines were laid, where they were placed, or what type they are, mine clearance becomes a risk-management problem rather than a certainty problem.”

In Hormuz, the physical conditions would add another layer of difficulty.

“In the Strait of Hormuz, depth, currents, heavy commercial traffic, seabed clutter, and the risk of renewed attacks could all complicate detection and clearance,” McLemore said. “Detection is usually the hardest part; once a mine is found and classified, neutralization or destruction is comparatively straightforward. Nearby underwater infrastructure, such as cables or pipelines, could slow or constrain how mines are destroyed, but it would not necessarily prevent clearance.”

Europe too late to act, ‘sat this one out’

The State Department adviser was blunt about Europe’s position.

“Europe sat this one out entirely,” he said. “No political will, no military positioning, no skin in the game. For them to launch a demining operation now, after the shooting has stopped, would be diplomatically awkward at best and operationally pointless at worst.”

That view reflects frustration inside parts of the US track over Europe’s limited role in the coercive phase of the crisis. It also understates Europe’s exposure. European economies would be among those affected by any sustained disruption of Hormuz, even if European militaries were not central to the conflict. For Brussels, Paris, London, Berlin, and Rome, the Strait is not only a military issue. It is an energy, inflation, shipping, and legal order issue.

The G7 exposed two competing European instincts. The first is operational: Be ready to support mine clearance and maritime security if the US-Iran track falters. The second is diplomatic: Avoid inserting European assets into a theater where Washington and Tehran are now negotiating directly and where any misstep could reignite escalation.

McLemore said the assets required for a serious mine-clearance mission would be specialized and slow-moving.

“Mine-clearance operations in a strategic waterway like the Strait of Hormuz would require a mix of mine countermeasures vessels, unmanned underwater and surface systems, sonar, remotely operated vehicles, EOD teams, small boats, helicopters, command-and-control support, and logistics,” he said.

“Some smaller systems and specialist teams can be flown in, but dedicated minehunters and minesweepers are slow assets, and many are not positioned near the Gulf, so movement from Europe or other theaters could take considerable time,” he continued. “Minehunting is also inherently slow because each suspected contact has to be detected, classified, and then neutralized or avoided.”

Those forces would also need protection. Mine countermeasures vessels are not designed to operate in the middle of active crossfire. They move slowly, follow predictable patterns, and often require escorts.

“They cannot eliminate risk; they can only manage it,” McLemore said.

That is why the memorandum, if implemented, may matter more than any naval mission. A political arrangement can create the permissive environment that mine-clearance forces would need. Without it, a European mission could become a tripwire rather than a stabilizing mechanism.

US-Iran MoU still incomplete 

Still, the memorandum itself remains incomplete. US President Donald Trump has described it in strong terms while also warning that military action could resume if Iran does not comply. Willian said Washington was focused on the agreement, not on a separate strait operation.

“There’s not much to say about the strait; we’re focused on the agreement,” he said. “There are some points to be adjusted, and the president was clear in an interview held that morning.” Willian then quoted President Trump’s warning on the memorandum of understanding.

“Trump was asked if the MOU with Iran was final or if they are still tinkering. Trump said, ‘If I don’t like it, if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their heads because they misbehaved for 47 years.’”

That language captures the fragility of the current moment. The agreement may have created a path away from direct conflict, but it has not removed the coercive logic around it. The same US administration presenting the memorandum as a breakthrough is also preserving the threat of renewed force.

He also suggested that the timing of the reopening remained uncertain.

“Hormuz will have an update when the deal is officially out and published,” he said. “We’re discussing a lot with them and Pakistan. We expect it to be 100% open until Friday, which I personally don’t think is going to happen.”

That caveat matters. Even if the strait is partially reopening and initial commercial traffic resumes, full normalization is a different threshold. The legal status of future fees or maritime services, the timeline for demining, the role of Oman and other littoral states, and the connection between Hormuz access and broader US-Iran negotiations remain politically sensitive.

For Europe, the immediate mission may now be less visible but not irrelevant. A large demining deployment may no longer be the lead scenario if the US-Iran channel holds. But European governments still have an interest in monitoring whether the reopening is genuinely free, safe, and commercially credible. They also have a stake in preventing a precedent in which access to Hormuz becomes a negotiated privilege rather than a protected principle of international navigation.

McLemore said the timeline for restoring full operations cannot be reduced to a fixed number of days.

“Restoring full commercial operations is less about a fixed timeline than about balancing risk, speed, and number of assets,” he said. “Mine countermeasures forces can prioritize opening verified transit lanes rather than clearing every possible mine, but that leaves a residual risk that shipowners, insurers, and governments must be willing to accept.”

According to him, better information about the mines, more assets, and a permissive security environment would allow risk to be reduced faster. Renewed hostilities, poor weather, uncertain mine locations, seabed clutter, heavy traffic, or threats to the mine-clearing force would push the balance the other way.

“Military authorities can report what areas have been surveyed and what risks have been reduced, but commercial carriers and insurers will make their own decisions about when the route is economically and operationally acceptable.”

That may be the clearest way to read the G7 outcome. The summit did not produce a European-led Hormuz operation. Instead, it exposed the limits of Europe’s ability to shape a crisis that had already moved into a direct US-Iran channel. At the same time, Europe cannot simply step away from the consequences. If the memorandum holds, Europe’s role may be diplomatic, commercial, and legal: ensuring that the reopening of the strait does not include hidden charges, coercive arrangements, or unstable security guarantees. If it fails, the maritime mission discussed at the G7 could return quickly to the table.

For now, the deal has reduced the urgency of a European naval operation. It has not removed the uncertainty around Hormuz. The strait may be reopening, but the larger test is whether it can remain open without turning every commercial crossing into a measure of political trust between Washington, Tehran, the Gulf, and the wider international market.

The Israel National Basketball team opened up training camp ahead of the final two games of the first round of 2027 World Cup qualifying against Germany and Croatia next week.

The blue-and-white has already secured qualification for the second round as it is 2-2 in Group E, which also includes Cyprus, whom it defeated twice back in February and March. However, the pair of games are still important because the results from the first round will carry over to the next stage of play.

Israel will host Germany in Latvia due to the ongoing security situation in the Holy Land and will then travel to Osijek to tip off against Croatia. Head coach Ariel Beit Halachmi will be without a number of players for this round as NBA All-Star Deni Avdija was not released by the Portland Trail Blazers, and Ben Saraf, who just completed his rookie season with the Brooklyn Nets, will also not be available for the upcoming contests.

In addition, there are a number of other national team stalwarts who are injured and will not be part of the squad, which includes 15 players and will be pared down to 14 who will travel to the two qualifiers.

As camp began at Hadar Yosef in Tel Aviv, Beit Halachmi spoke about his upcoming challenges.

Halachmi speaks on team challenges ahead

“We have gathered here for the final window of the first stage of the qualifiers. We’ve already advanced from our group, and we’re preparing for two very difficult games against strong national teams. We have a lot of absences for many reasons, there are injuries and NBA players who were not released by their clubs, but I want to focus on the players who are here. There’s nothing we can do about those who aren’t, and we’ll give our players the confidence they need.”

Benayahu Srur received his first call-up to the national team after a couple of seasons that had been full of injuries, but one area that the squad is lacking is size and physicality, which the big man can provide.

“Benayahu is one of our strongest big men physically, and we need that in this window because last time we struggled in that area. He was in excellent form but unfortunately suffered a serious injury. We’ll see him in the few practices we have and evaluate how much he can contribute during this window.”

Israel captain Tomer Ginat had a tough season and had been out injured for a while before returning for the Israeli league playoffs with Hapoel Tel Aviv, but it’s clear that the forward is nowhere near being 100% fit.

“From what we know, his situation is shaky,” Beit Halachmi explained. “You could see that in the way he was running and playing during the finals series. From his perspective, he’ll do everything he can to be available, and we all know Tomer’s commitment, but it seems he’s highly doubtful.”

The championship finals series between Hapoel Tel Aviv and Maccabi Tel Aviv has caused several players to miss the start of training camp, including not only Ginat but also Yam Madar, Guy Palatin, and Roman Sorkin. However, despite the absences, Beit Halachmi is content that the game of basketball is still being played due to the conflict that the country has had to endure with the war.

“With everything we’ve gone through over the past year, not only in basketball, the fact that we’re still playing is a miracle. But we can’t complain about it; we’ll deal with the situation. If the series doesn’t end on Sunday night, their arrival will be delayed by a few more days, but that’s the reality.”

Although Israel has already advanced to the next stage, the numerous absences, especially considering that Germany and Croatia are coming into the game with strong rosters, could hurt the team’s qualification chances for the World Cup as the first-round records carry over to the next.

“There are still many games left to play,” Beit Halachmi said. “You can’t say after this window that our chances have dropped significantly, but we need to try to collect wins. Even after this window, we have more games ahead, and a lot can happen.”

Beit Halachmi also went into a bit more detail about Israel’s NBA players – Avdija, Saraf and Danny Wolf – not being released to play in this window.

“The reasons they are not here are related to the players’ injuries, both in Brooklyn and Portland, and there’s not much we can do about that. We know that Deni and Ben came every time they were able to. I think there’s a pretty high chance we’ll see them in the next window, and I hope we’ll have them available in August.”

Raz Adam, who tragically passed away in a car accident last month, was an important part of this national team along with Beit Halachmi’s Under-20 squad, including the one that captured the 2019 European Championship.

“First of all, Raz was supposed to be here on the court with us. It’s a tremendous loss, first and foremost for his family, and  also for Israeli basketball as a whole.”

See more Israeli sports coverage at www.sportsrabbi.com/en

The world is generally pleased that the United States and Iran have reached an agreement to end the latest round of fighting. Markets rallied. Oil prices fell. Politicians and businesses expressed relief.

Israel’s reaction was notably different. The stock market declined when the deal was announced. Politicians across the political spectrum voiced concern, and in some cases outright alarm.

The deal’s long-term fate is uncertain. Its strategic lesson is not.

For the United States, Iran is one foreign-policy challenge among many. For Israel, it is the central strategic threat. The latest agreement underscores a reality no Israeli government can ignore: no outside power will ever care as much about confronting the Islamic Republic as Israel does.

But that does not mean Israel should respond by depending only on itself. Quite the opposite. Iran’s greatest strategic achievement was not its missile arsenal or even its nuclear program. It was learning how to multiply its power through others. By cultivating partners and proxies across the region, Tehran amplified its influence while reducing its own costs.

If the confrontation with the Islamic Republic is likely to last decades rather than years, Israel needs a strategy built on the same principle. For too long, Israel has approached Iran primarily as a military problem.

Iran, by contrast, approached Israel as a political, regional, and strategic problem. That difference helps explain why Tehran was able to project influence so effectively despite its economic weakness and international isolation. Israel’s response must be equally comprehensive.

The war inflicted substantial damage on Iran, but it did not solve Israel’s Iran problem. As long as the Islamic Republic remains in power, Israel will continue to face a hostile regime committed to rebuilding its capabilities and pursuing confrontation.

If the source of the threat is the regime itself, Israel needs a political strategy aimed at helping an alternative emerge. Today, the Iranian opposition remains fragmented, underfunded, and organizationally weak.

Numerous opposition groups exist, but none possess the infrastructure, communications networks, financial resources, or organizational capacity necessary to seriously challenge the regime.

At the same time, Israel should be far more disciplined in how it approaches the issue. Public discussions of regime change often undermine the very forces they seek to support by allowing Tehran to portray opponents as foreign agents.

The most effective support is often the least visible.

Second, Israel must stop thinking about partnerships primarily through a Western lens.

Risk of overdependence on the US

America will remain Israel’s indispensable strategic partner. Yet recent years have demonstrated the risks of excessive dependence on any single country. The answer is not distancing Israel from the West but broadening Israel’s horizons beyond it.

India offers scale, technology, and industrial capacity. The Abraham Accords states, particularly the UAE, provide valuable regional partnerships.

But Israel needs to be more ambitious and look farther east. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are investing heavily in defense and advanced technologies while facing growing security challenges of their own. Closer cooperation would strengthen Israel’s resilience while reducing dangerous dependencies.

The third lesson comes from Tehran itself. Iran’s success was never primarily about ideology. It was about leverage. The regime repeatedly found ways to turn local grievances, regional conflicts, and shared interests into strategic assets.

For decades, Tehran extended its reach through a network of aligned actors stretching from Lebanon to Yemen.

Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, Iraqi militias, and Syrian allies enabled Iran to pressure its adversaries while limiting its own exposure. The result was a regional system that forced Israel to confront threats on multiple fronts simultaneously.

Israel should not replicate Iran’s proxy model. But across the region are governments, communities, and security actors whose interests overlap with Israel’s objective of limiting Iranian influence.

In Lebanon, many seek freedom from Hezbollah’s dominance. In Yemen, the internationally recognized government continues to fight the Houthis. In Iraq, many oppose militia control and Iranian interference.

These actors do not need to become pro-Israel. They need only share an interest in weakening the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the system it has built.

By helping strengthen such partners where appropriate – with intelligence, training, communications capabilities, or financial assistance – Israel can force Tehran to devote more attention to defending its regional position and less to threatening Israel.

Finally, none of this will matter unless Israel strengthens itself.

The coming years will require greater defense spending, stronger supply chains, larger military manpower pools, and a more productive economy capable of sustaining a prolonged competition. They will require difficult political decisions and a renewed focus on national cohesion.

The challenge facing Israel is not simply Iran’s missiles, nuclear ambitions, or proxies. It is learning to compete politically and strategically, not just militarily.

This will require a different kind of statecraft. Israel has built world-class military and intelligence institutions, but competing with Iran’s network strategy demands more than battlefield success. 

It requires understanding local political dynamics, identifying potential partners, and cultivating relationships that advance shared interests. Building that capacity may prove essential to translating military success into lasting strategic advantage.

Tehran built its influence through patience, political organization, partnerships, and networks. Israel’s response must be equally sophisticated.

The next phase of this struggle will not be won solely by the country with the strongest military. It will be won by the country that best mobilizes a network of shared interests.

Israel has already demonstrated that it can strike Iran. The harder task is building the coalition needed to outlast it.

Wars are won by armies. Long struggles are won by strategy.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel prevented Iran from “carrying out a plan to annihilate us” during a speech at the Jerusalem News Syndicate (JNS) International Policy Summit on Sunday.

“They would have had a nuclear weapon, an atomic bomb to do so,” said Netanyahu. “We prevented that from happening.”

He said that the IDF had “removed an existential danger” through its actions against Iran over the past year.

“Had we not acted in Operation Rising Lion and then in Operation Roaring Lion, Iran would have had atomic bombs, and let me tell you something. They would have used them,” he said. “That’s what we prevented.”

Netanyahu emphasized the achievements of “the largest airstrike” in Israel’s history, conducted in partnership with the United States.

“We destroyed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure,” said Netanyahu. “We knocked out 20 of their top nuclear scientists; 12 in Rising Lion, another eight in Roaring Lion.”

When you take out the scientists, it’s very hard to make a nuclear weapon,” he added. “We did hundreds of billions in damage to the IRGC; they may not recover.”

Netanyahu: We were told ‘for years’ we couldn’t attack Iran

“For years, people told us, you cannot attack the soil of Iran,” he stressed. “Yes, you can do Mossad operations, and we did quite a few. I authorized many, but you cannot send our military to Iran, but we changed that. We sent our brave pilots over the skies of Iran, and they took out targets, regime targets, terror targets, missile batteries, and missile pods. sites, and nuclear sites.

“We changed Israel’s security doctrine. We initiate, we attack, we surprise, and we attack those enemies that seek our destruction, that seek to kill us; we attack them before they have a chance to do so.”

The prime minister described the achievements as having created the conditions for the fall of the Islamic regime and called on the Iranian people to seize the opportunity to “eventually” overthrow the Iranian government.

“We shattered Iran’s terror axis,” he said. “We took out Sinwar, we took out Haniyeh, we took out Deif, we took out tens of thousands of terrorists, and despite those who said it couldn’t be done, we brought back to Israel every single hostage.”

Netanyahu called the return of Israeli hostages “an achievement that I think the entire people of Israel and the entire people of the free world should be proud of.”

PM discusses beeper operation, Nasrallah assassination

He then turned to achievements against Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the beeper operation and the assassination of former chief Hassan Nasrallah.

“We exploded the beepers, we took out Nasrallah, we decimated Hezbollah’s military machine, we prevented the Radwan Force from invading the Galilee, we destroyed over 90 percent of the 150,000 rockets and missiles that Hezbollah amassed against us.”

He further discussed the various security zones the IDF had established around Israel’s borders amid the conflict.

“We established a security zone in Gaza, we established a security zone in Syria, we established a security zone in Lebanon, and we shall keep it as long as necessary to protect our people,” said Netanyahu.

Having arrived at the summit from a visit to his brother Yonatan Netanyahu’s memorial, the prime minister discussed the lessons learned from the Entebbe operation, in which Yonatan Netanyahu was killed during the rescue of Israeli hostages in Uganda.

“Entebbe showed that if free people, if they mobilize their courage and muster their strength, they can overcome the worst tyrannies in the world, however threatening, however challenging,” Prime Minister Netanyahu said.

Returning to Iran, Netanyahu described the Islamic Republic as the “greatest sponsor of terrorism on the planet.”

Netanyahu cited his father, Benzion, who passed away in 2012, as saying: “Iran vows to destroy the Jewish state. The people of Israel are showing the world how a nation should behave in the face of an existential threat. Stare unflinchingly at the danger, calmly consider what needs to be done and what can be done, and be ready to enter the fray at the proper moment.”

Regarding Lebanon, Netanyahu vowed that the IDF would remain in the country’s South “as long as we need to protect our people.”

“No country would be asked to do otherwise,” he noted.

Netanyahu accused terrorists of committing a “double crime” through the use of civilians as human shields, emphasizing the IDF’s relatively low ratio of civilian deaths in combat.

“We should be commended for it, not condemned,” Netanyahu said.

“We don’t have a war with Lebanon, we have a war with Hezbollah,” he added. “I’ve devoted my life to protecting the security of the state of Israel, and nothing will change that.” 

Netanyahu concluded by calling on Jewish people worldwide to “stand up” against rising antisemitism.

I pledge to you that we will also fight this battle of antisemitism around the world, we will fight on the eight front as well, the battle of our delegitimization,” he said. “Don’t cower, don’t be afraid, and fight back.”

Huckabee speaks at summit

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee spoke at the summit before Netanyahu, citing the biblical phrase “Thus the world will be blessed.”

“Our founding fathers understood this,” said Huckabee. “They understood it in such a way that even in our Declaration of Independence, we made it very clear that our rights do not come from the government; they come from God, they come from the Creator.

“And where did they get this idea? They got it right here, in this city, Jerusalem,” he added. “They drew it from the uninterrupted history of the Jewish people, which is connected to God and is a light to the world.”

Huckabee said that Americans “should thank God for the Jewish people and for the foundations upon which freedom and the sanctity of man were built, because that is what distinguishes our values ​​from the values ​​of totalitarianism and dictatorship.”

“I want no part of that,” he added. “I love freedom, and the heart, soul, and source of that freedom came right here, in this country.”

“Let us never apologize for that,” Huckabee concluded.

In the last few years, while most Israeli citizens try to maintain some semblance of normal life under constant security pressure, two populations have continued to experience the war at full intensity: reserve soldiers and their families, and the residents of the northern conflict zone. 

And then some are both – families whose breadwinner has spent months at the frontlines while their children sleep in a safe room a kilometer from the Lebanese border. 

For the members of community rapid-response units in northern villages, this is not a hypothetical. It is Tuesday. For the latter, routine is an impossible daily dilemma. 

In the absence of a government decision to organize structured evacuations during the recent rounds of fighting, these communities were left exposed to rocket and drone fire, sometimes with only seconds to reach shelter. 

For young families, this has meant living indefinitely inside safe rooms, with the sound of artillery explosions as the permanent backdrop of their home.

The decision by many northern communities not to evacuate during these last months of war was not rooted in indifference to danger. It grew directly from the trauma of the previous evacuation at the start of the Israel-Hamas War. 

The numbers tell the story: the city of Kiryat Shmona, for example, was dispersed across more than 55 local authorities and over 300 hotels and facilities nationwide. 

As Elad Kozokaro, director of the city’s community center, cried out in real time, that dispersal was not merely geographic. It was the dismantling of a community’s social fabric, atom by atom.

When a city scatters across dozens of locations, educational continuity breaks down, support networks collapse, and the bonds holding people to their place begin to fray. In practice, a significant share of evacuees never returned home even after the official evacuation period ended. 

Life outside the threatened zone revealed the possibility of a more stable and secure existence, far from the geographically distanced, politically isolated, and security-exposed north. 

The painful familiarity with the cost of evacuation, combined with a deep ethos of “we do not abandon our community,” drawing inspiration from the historic Battle of Tel Hai, led regional councils and communities to choose staying over yet another uprooting. 

But that choice carries its own psychological toll.

This is where two sacred values collide head-on: the welfare of the child versus national resilience. Children on the northern border continue to live under a reality of sirens, explosions, and daily existential tension. 

The figures coming from resilience centers and trauma coalitions along the conflict zone reveal a disturbing picture: a spike of more than 300% in parents seeking treatment for their children, with roughly 68% of children who remained in combat zones showing clear symptoms of anxiety, severe sleep disturbances, constant hypervigilance, and behavioral regression.

Years of rocket fire on the Gaza envelope communities, alongside life under constant security threats on the roads of Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, have already taught us that prolonged exposure to combat conditions carries a cumulative and long-term psychological cost, one that strikes at a child’s most basic sense of security. 

A moral dilemma without easy answers

Are we permitted to sacrifice our children’s mental health on the altar of holding the land? And yet, is the answer to protect the child by turning him into a refugee in his own country, spending months in a hotel lobby without any stable framework? 
Are we not simply trading the trauma of sirens for the trauma of displacement?

This moral dilemma has accompanied Israeli society since its founding. 
During the War of Independence, “Operation Baby” saw the children of Kibbutz Nitzanim in the Negev evacuated together with their mothers and caregivers under Egyptian fire in May 1948, while the kibbutz’s fighting members stayed behind to hold the line. 

The same thing happened in those days in Gush Etzion, where women and children were evacuated to Jerusalem just days before the final battle and the devastating massacre from the hands of the Jordanian Arab Legion.
 
But then, evacuation was understood as a tactical and localized measure, a breathing space designed to allow defenders to hold the line without children becoming an operational burden. 

Today, evacuation has become a sweeping civilian retreat strategy that effectively moves the border southward. Within this reality, a legitimate demand has emerged from young families for structured “respite” periods. 

This is not without precedent: during the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel implemented structured short-term respite rotations for children and elderly residents, allowing families several days of relief outside the combat zone before returning home. 

The model worked. This intermediate approach would allow families to take several organized days of relief in hotels outside the combat zone, without fully dismantling the community and without being drawn back into the spiral of long-term evacuation.

The debate over conflict zone communities must no longer be framed in the binary terms of “staying or leaving.” 

The home in the North is the last fortress of Israeli sovereignty, and if the children are not there, ultimately the state will not be there either. We should also remember that for some families, these are not separate burdens. 

The same household sending a reservist to the front is also the household counting seconds to the shelter. For them, this is not a policy debate. It is daily life. 

The time has come for the government to stop managing evacuations and start investing in community resilience and respite models with the same seriousness and budgets it invests in Iron Dome. 

Only then can we protect, at the same time, Israel’s human shield and the children living within it.

The leader of France’s far-left La France Insoumise party accused French ministers of “following the orders” of the country’s Jewish organization.

During a conference on Thursday, Jean-Luc Mélenchon launched a highly polemical attack against the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF) and its president Yonathan Arfi.

“The CRIF, well, it’s basically some far-right machine where every year all the ministers line up to go eat there. They pay 800 euros to go eat there, but taxes reimburse 60 percent of it, so it works out fine. So they all go there, and they follow orders,” he said.

Here, Mélenchon was referring to the annual CRIF dinner, a political event in France where senior politicians traditionally attend and speak. He implied that Jewish organizations secretly control politicians or exercise political influence behind the scenes.

Mélenchon’s comments on Thursday were made in response to a specific incident involving the banning of a planned ‘anti-racism’ concert organized by his party La France Insoumise (LFI).

Arfi had publicly criticized the event on June 16, questioning whether it was “appropriate for democracy,” and on June 17, the Paris police prefect Patrice Faure signed Order No. 2026-00750 banning the concert. Authorities cited possible public disorder and concerns over certain invited artists.

Melenchon’s comments were then made on June 18.

Subsequently, however, on June 19, the Paris Administrative Court suspended the ban after LFI appealed, allowing the concert to go ahead after all on June 21.

Mélenchon’s comments about CRIF sparked significant controversy.

‘Mélenchon is reviving an antisemitic trope’

French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau said, “When Jean-Luc Mélenchon suggests that the government is ‘taking orders’ from CRIF, he is not merely engaging in political controversy: he is reviving an antisemitic trope based on the fantasy of secret Jewish influence over those in power.”

“These insinuations, which fuel conspiracy thinking, are unworthy of a political leader,” he continued. “They must be called out for what they are.”

Arfi himself said that “at LFI, the antisemitic fantasy machine is running at full throttle.”

“According to Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Paris police prefect does not make his decisions based on the laws and the interests of the French people but based on… a tweet from the Crif,” he said.

He added that the idea that Jews pull the strings of power is “one of the most worn-out antisemitic prejudices.”

Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, the director of American Jewish Committee Europe, said, “Designating a Jewish organization as the hidden power that commands the state is antisemitism in its most blatant form: conspiracy, hidden strings, shadow.”

“LFI is a passionately antisemitic party,” she added.

“LFI is a passionately antisemitic party.”

A continued political partnership with the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties could endanger Israel, Likud MK Dan Illouz told The Jerusalem Post in a recent interview, saying that it was time to initiate a break between the years-long alliance ahead of the upcoming elections.

Illouz is one of the vocal critics of the contentious legislation being advanced by the haredi parties from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party.

Among the legislation being advanced is a bill that seeks to enshrine Torah study in the country’s Basic Law as part of a proposal pushed by haredi parties to encourage draft evasion and change the status of yeshiva students who do not serve, enabling them to continue receiving state benefits.

Another controversial bill is the daycare subsidies legislation, which aims to change the eligibility criteria for daycare subsidies, basing it solely on a mother’s income, in a move that critics argue will encourage state subsidies for parents of draft evaders even amid the IDF’s severe manpower shortage.

Both recently passed their preliminary readings in the Knesset. The haredi parties have threatened to halt their voting with the coalition until there is progress with the bills, causing other legislation to be delayed in being advanced. It remains unclear whether the bills will be able to progress further, as lawmakers from the opposition and some from the coalition, including Illouz, vow not to vote in favor of them.

Haredim could pose a ‘danger’ to the state – MK Illouz

Responding to the political deals and threats from the haredi parties, Illouz told the Post that the time has come to sever ties with them.

“We’ve had a coalition partnership with the haredim for quite some time now, but we’re in a place where what they’re asking, in my eyes, can be a danger to the future of the state of Israel,” he said.

He spoke on the potential damage of the partnership with the haredi parties if things continue as they are: “If the army doesn’t have enough soldiers, then that’s a danger to our ability to protect the state of Israel.”

Illouz also said that the economy takes a severe hit as well from haredi draft evasion.

“If this continues as the haredi community grows, then we won’t be able to manage an actual economy here in Israel,” he said. “I think that we’re at a point where we need to look at the situation very bluntly and understand that the partnership with the haredim does more harm than it does good right now”

Illouz said that he has called on the coalition to attempt to seek other partnerships: “I believe that the ideology that I represent: the right-wing, free market, hawkish ideology, is the one that needs to lead the country. But I don’t believe that the coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties is actually something which is helping us advance this ideology.”

Regarding haredi parties’ warnings that they will end the partnership themselves, Illouz said that “I don’t think we should see it as a threat. I think that we’re the ones that need to initiate this break.”

Speaking on the content of bills being advanced by the haredi parties, Illouz explained that in a post-October 7 reality, Likud or any Zionist party cannot continue to support such legislation.

“Since October 7, we are in a time where the army is begging for more soldiers and where the people who do serve are serving extended amounts of time, including reserve soldiers that have family, jobs that they’re sacrificing in order to serve,” he said.

“And that in this situation, we cannot as a Zionist party, the Likud, condone or advance the continuation of the current situation where a whole sector of the population does not serve and keeps getting benefits from the state,” he explained.

“And by the way, it’s true of the ultra-Orthodox, and it’s also true of the Arab community. In those two communities, very big numbers do not serve, he added.

Illouz also stressed it was important to ensure that state benefits “are really directed to that population which is serving.”

Illouz stressed that service in the IDF and keeping the Torah are compatible

He added that as a religious person, the Basic Law: Torah Study bill was an affront to his religious beliefs.

“I believe that Judaism and Torah are a call for taking responsibility. It’s a call for when your brothers are in danger, you go out and you help them. It’s not a call for sitting down and not doing anything. And the bill right now is actually warping what Torah actually is,” he said.

When asked if there was any recent response from Netanyahu about his voting against the coalition, Illouz said that there had not been.

He noted that when out in the field, he sensed that many Likud supporters feel that he is representing their ideology.

“At the end of the day, Likudnikim are people who serve in the army. They send their kids to serve in the army. They themselves do reserve duty, and they’re very happy that someone is representing their values, and so I’m very proud to be the person that is actually representing those values,” Illouz explained.

Regarding if other members of Knesset have responded negatively to his voting, Illouz said that there has not been too harsh of a response.

“Obviously they think differently than I do, not necessarily on substance,” he said. “But many agree with me. They don’t necessarily believe that we need to go all the way until breaking the historic partnership with the haredim, but that’s a legitimate argument to have.”

While the Likud holds primaries to determine its Knesset list, which have been set to take place no later than July 28, there have been numerous reports that Netanyahu has been seeking to change the method of conducting the primaries this year to grant the premier more control over who is in the highest spots on the list.

Regarding such reports, Illouz said he was aware that Netanyahu wants more influence as to the number of people he can nominate to the list.

“I do understand that the prime minister says that this election is different from others and that he needs to have more influence. I’ve [also] seen reports about canceling the primaries, but I don’t believe that that will happen. I think that would be very bad for the Likud,” he said.

Parties are not mandated to hold primaries in Israel, and Illouz explained that he was “very proud to be the only democratic party right now in the Knesset. We’re very proud about this title, and I don’t think that we’d want to let it go.”

Speaking on the process of the Likud primaries, Illouz said that this year’s primary race specifically will be “incredibly competitive.”

He said that the party “has a lot of members of Knesset, and the way the Likud works is that only 21 spots are for existing members of Knesset.”

“So we have over 40 people that will be running for around 20 spots,” he said.

Illouz added that his current goal was to get elected in the primaries, with “the hope that the Likud can feel that I’m the one who represents their voice.”

Of all the diplomatic oddities thrown up by the four-month-old Iran war, perhaps none is as understated, yet as revealing, as this: Israel finds itself watching the endgame being negotiated through Pakistani good offices. 

And it is, by its own admission, distinctly uncomfortable with the arrangement.

That discomfort comes at a curious moment. Across the Atlantic, the debate is no longer simply about how the war was fought but about who emerged politically stronger from it.
 
Recent commentary in The New York Times has argued that the United States failed to achieve many of its original objectives and that Iran has succeeded in shaping the terms of the post-war diplomatic process. 

Meanwhile, Pakistani media is rejoicing in Islamabad’s role in brokering the ceasefire and shepherding the negotiations toward a formal settlement. 

The contrast is striking: while parts of the American strategic community are questioning the outcome, Pakistan is presenting itself as the architect of peace.

In the words of Yaniv Revach, Israel’s consul general to Midwest India, Israel was not pleased that Pakistan had emerged as the mediator between Washington and Tehran.
 
As per media reports, the Americans and President Donald Trump are running the diplomatic track, and Jerusalem “trusts the American government to take care of Israeli security interests.” Yet the discomfort is evident.

This is worth sitting with because it cuts against the grain of how the Pakistan-Israel relationship is usually discussed. For decades, the two countries have maintained discreet channels of communication despite the absence of formal ties. 

That Israel now appears uneasy with Pakistan’s diplomatic centrality suggests the concern is not Pakistan’s role itself, but what that role may translate into.

Pakistan’s refusal to join the Abraham Accords despite repeated American encouragement offers a clue. The question is not about ideology but about leverage.
 
Pakistan has concluded that its value to Washington as a conduit to Tehran does not require any formal repositioning toward Israel. 

More strikingly, Washington appears willing to accept that calculation, suggesting that securing a diplomatic channel to Tehran currently matters more than pressing Islamabad on normalization.

Geography as leverage

This is the crux of what should inform both Indian and Israeli observers. Pakistan’s mediating role is not simply a function of this war. 

It reflects a deeper reality: Pakistan’s location astride Iran, Afghanistan, and the Gulf gives it a form of strategic relevance that repeatedly survives periods of tension with Washington. 

The discovery of Osama bin Laden near Pakistan’s premier military academy, years of mutual distrust, and recurring economic crises have not made Pakistan dispensable.
Geography, as a form of power, rarely requires goodwill.

Seen this way, Israel’s unease is less about Pakistan’s intentions in this negotiation than about the precedent it creates. Every round of diplomacy conducted through Islamabad reinforces Pakistan’s claim to be a useful intermediary between the West and some of the region’s most difficult actors.

For New Delhi, the lesson is not that Pakistan has won anything tangible from this war. Yet the symbolism surrounding the June 19 Geneva signing ceremony is difficult to ignore.

Pakistan has announced that it will host the formal signing of the US-Iran agreement after months of shuttle diplomacy involving Washington, Tehran, and Islamabad. 

Pakistan is not merely providing a venue; it is positioning itself as the bridge through which the post-war settlement is being concluded.

Whether this proves to be an episodic gain or a lasting strategic shift remains unclear. Pakistan has leveraged international crises before without fundamentally altering its long-term position. Yet this moment is different in one respect: Islamabad has placed itself at the center of a major diplomatic process without making any corresponding concessions on its relationship with Israel.

Who gets a seat at the table

Four months in, the Iran war continues to dominate headlines, but trust remains scarce among all the principal actors. The most striking feature of the diplomatic process is not simply Pakistan’s presence, but Israel’s relative absence. 

A war that began with direct Israeli stakes is now being concluded through a framework shaped largely by Washington, Tehran, and Islamabad. Israel is involved and consulted through American channels, but it is not visible at the table. 

That outcome reflects the preferences of both Iran and Pakistan, neither of which had any interest in legitimizing an overt Israeli role in the negotiations.

Symbolism matters in diplomacy. 

The image of Pakistan hosting the signing ceremony while Israel watches from the sidelines reinforces a narrative of diplomatic relevance that Islamabad will seek to convert into political capital long after the guns fall silent. 

Whether the arrangement ultimately delivers a durable peace is another matter.

For now, however, Pakistan appears to have emerged as the principal diplomatic beneficiary of the process. Yet diplomatic relevance is rarely without a price.

Having benefited from Washington’s trust at a critical moment, Islamabad may eventually find that the conversation shifts from “what it can offer the US” to “what the US expects in return,” including on issues where Pakistan has long resisted external pressure.

The writer holds a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. She is a senior fellow at the Centre for New Age Warfare Studies, Delhi, a visiting research fellow at the Centre for National Security Studies in Bangalore, and a former researcher of India’s National Security Advisory Board.

UK parliament is set to debate on Monday whether to open an inquiry into Israel’s control over UK politics.

The House will deliberate over e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.

The petition has collected 118,331 signatures, which is over the 100,000 required to be debated in Westminster Hall.

The text of the petition says, “We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics. We believe it is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns.”

“We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinize how pro-Israel organizations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate.”

UK Government does not public inquiry on pro-Israeli influence 

The Government already responded to the petition on 17 April 2026, saying it does not support a public inquiry on pro-Israeli influence and does not have plans to hold an inquiry on wider foreign influence and lobbying more generally.

It nevertheless said that it takes concerns about foreign influence in politics and democracy seriously, and is already taking action to address this.

The Cabinet Office explained that there is an existing framework for transparency around lobbying of the UK Government and Parliament, which includes quarterly government transparency publications of ministers’ and senior officials’ external meetings, a statutory register for consultant lobbyists, and Parliament’s Codes of Conduct, which set rules on lobbying and the registration of interests by members of each House.

Most recently, in December 2025, the Government announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics led by Philip Rycroft.

The review focused on foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems from a range of sources, building on the major reforms set out in the Elections Strategy announced in July 2025. The review’s findings were published on 25 March 2026.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said on Sunday that Israel “must leave Lebanon,” according to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated Tasnim News Agency.

Qassem referred to Israel as the “aggressor,” saying that there will be “no safe zone” for IDF soldiers in southern Lebanon.

The Hezbollah chief described Israeli actions in Lebanon as having “revealed its humiliation” through the killing of Lebanese civilians.

“The escalation of Israel’s recent crimes and the daily killing of civilians and children, such as the tragedy of the Al-Tahir family and the destruction of houses, do not show the strength of this regime, but rather depict the height of its weakness and humiliation in front of the world’s public opinion,” he said.

He further accused Israel of seeking to deceive negotiators, saying the country “did not give any concessions to Lebanon in the past months and only sought deception, intensified attacks, and dictated its demands.”

“Passivity against these excesses is considered a damage to Lebanon’s national sovereignty, and the resistance will never surrender to this approach,” added Qassem.

Qassem noted that Hezbollah “enjoys the great support of the leadership, the nation, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.” 

Qassem: MoU includes protection of Lebanon

“The signing of the memorandum of understanding, the first paragraph of which emphasizes the need to immediately stop the aggression against Lebanon, is a manifestation of selflessness, honesty, and the use of all of Iran’s capacities to defend the independence and nation of Lebanon,” Qassem said. “Some claim Iran’s involvement in these matters, while the real supporters of the country have not changed.”

He added that the United States is “also responsible for this crisis,” noting that the US has “reconsidered” its relationship with Iran amid the start of negotiations between the two countries.

“The prosperity and improvement of Lebanon’s situation can only be realized in the shadow of peaceful life, national solidarity, and non-dependence on foreigners, so that relying on this alliance, we can stand against the Zionist enemy and regain national sovereignty,” said Qassem.

“The resistance continues to stand strong, and any ceasefire must be comprehensive and inclusive,” he added. “In this direction, the Lebanese government should take advantage of the useful memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic of Iran to improve the country’s conditions.”

Qassem added that Hezbollah “cooperates” with the Lebanese Army, which he holds responsible for “maintaining the sovereignty of the country.”

Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese MP decries calls to disarm

Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese MP Hassan Fadlallah criticized those in the Lebanese governemnt demanding a state monopoly on weapons, Iran’s IRNA news agency reported on Sunday.

“Those who talk about a monopoly on arms, if they have the ability to do it, go ahead and do it,” said Fadlallah. “We say to them, ‘Your time in power will expire, but our resistance and our weapons will remain.'”

“The resistance is not a tool in anyone’s hands; the people themselves are the resistance,” he added. “We have no option but steadfastness and resistance.”

Pakistan continues to play a key role in Iran talks. The warm embrace between US Vice-President JD Vance and Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, alongside Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, is important. Vance praised the Pakistanis for everything they have done to help along the talks with Iran. Sharif had arrived in Switzerland on Sunday for the technical talks with the US, Iran, and other countries.

As Turkey’s Anadolu noted, “Sharif, along with army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, will represent Pakistan in the talks on the implementation of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding in Burgenstock, a statement from Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said.” Pakistan is working to advance the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran. Sharif is also holding talks with Qatar, according to reports. This is part of Pakistan’s “enduring commitment to dialogue and durable peace in the region.”

The visuals at the Lake Lucerne Summit in Switzerland are important. Vance was clearly very interested in showing US support for Pakistan. They met in front of a banner announcing the summit. The banner shows the flags of Pakistan, Qatar, the US, and Iran. Pakistan and Qatar are in the middle, while the US and Iran flags are on the ends of the four-flag arrangement on the poster.

There is a lot of focus on the photos and videos coming out of Switzerland as the meetings get underway. Hiba Nasr, Washington Bureau chief of Asharq al-Awsat news, noted the following “The visuals in Switzerland: The US delegation entered well before the Iranians, [Mohammed Bagher] Ghalibaf didn’t enter while the press was inside, Vance did; Iranian FM entered last & didn’t shake hands.”

Margaret Brennan, CBS Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, noted on X that “I’m told the Iranian delegation refused to participate in the photo spray. The TV pool was not allowed back into the Swiss boardroom after the Iranian delegation joined the meeting. The producer on site did spot Speaker Mohammed Bagher Qalibaf & Foreign Minister Aragchi walking in.” Iran, in the past, has refused direct talks with the US.

Vance praises Pakistan delegation

Vance was quoted as saying by Reuters correspondent Humeyra Pamuk: “What the President has asked us to do is turn over a new leaf to transform our relationship with the people of Iran, and to extend an outstretched hand that says to the people of Iran that if your leadership is willing to give up being a driver of regional instability, if they are willing to give up nuclear weapons ambitions for the long term, then the United States is willing to fundamentally transform our relationship…”

There is a lot of focus on the warmth between Vance and the Pakistan delegation. Vance clearly has a close relationship with the Pakistan Field Marshal, as indicated by a joke he told about how the Marshall was one of several important people in his life. “I have joked that I have two very, very important people in my life. An Indian and a Pakistani. The Indian is my wife, and the Pakistani is Field Marshal Munir.” He said he has spoken to Munir more than anyone else in the last few months. He said the Pakistani military chief had shown himself to be a good diplomat. He noted that the Pakistan prime minister and Field Marshall had welcomed Vance in Pakistan during the negotiations there.

These are words that will mean a lot to Pakistan. Pakistan prides itself on receiving the respect it believes it deserves. It has sometimes felt eclipsed by other countries, and it also feels it has to compete with its much larger neighbor, India. In the past, Pakistan and the US were close partners. This was the case since the era of Richard Nixon and was true during the US backing of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

However, after 9/11 things shifted. The US had a complex relationship with Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf. The US had also navigated other Pakistani leaders such as Nawaz Sharif, as well as Benezir Bhutto and Imran Khan. The US raid into Abbotabad to eliminate Osama Bin Laden was controversial in Pakistan. Pakistan has not been portrayed well in most US films about the global war on terror. As such, the new warmth with the Trump administration matters a lot to Islamabad.

Pakistan wants to play a larger role

Pakistan wants to play a larger role alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar in the Middle East. It is shifting its view West, rather than dealing with India or China. Pakistan was a conduit for US ties to China decades ago, but things have also shifted there. In addition, the US role in Afghanistan was not always greeted with approval in Pakistan. Now that the US has left Afghanistan, Pakistan has a more nuanced approach.

From Israel’s point of view, the role of Pakistan and Qatar in the talks is concerning. Israeli commentators have become more critical of Qatar in the last year and a half. In addition, commentators have become critical of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, viewing them as “Sunni” powers that may challenge Israel in the future. There is growing talk in Israeli leadership circles about how these Sunni countries could be a challenge now that Iran is weakened.

These countries likely want close ties with the US because they are concerned about Israeli threats in the future. Having seen Israel’s military power create air superiority for Israel over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, these countries now feel they are basically on a border with Israel. This is true of Turkey’s influence in Syria and also of Egypt on the actual border with Israel, as well as Pakistan on the border with Iran and Qatar, which suffered an Israeli airstrike in 2025.

Pakistan is a potential major winner from the Iran talks. However, it will want to make sure that Iran actually stays the course in the talks. Iran has shown in the past that it will want to drag this out and create a crisis. Vance’s personal warm relationship with the Pakistani leadership may help smooth things over. 

Israel filed a civil lawsuit on Thursday in Haifa Magistrate’s Court for about NIS 2m. against four terrorists from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine who kidnapped and murdered IDF soldier Moshe Tamam in 1984. 

The suit was filed by the State Attorney’s Office on behalf of the Defense Ministry, with the aim of recovering for the state treasury and the public the payments the state has made, and continues to make, to Tamam’s bereaved parents, Galia and Eliyahu, for the financial damage caused by the terrorists’ actions.

This comes in addition to the life sentences imposed on them in the criminal proceedings in 1987.

Lawsuit filed against three living terrorists, next of kin for terrorist who died in prison

The lawsuit was filed against the convicted terrorists Ibrahim Abd al-Razzaq Biadsa, Ibrahim Naif Abu Much, and Saleh, formerly Rushdi Abu Much, as well as against the next of kin of terrorist Walid Nimer Asaad Decca, who was responsible for the cell and ordered Tamam’s murder. Decca died in 2024 while serving his sentence.

The four terrorists, who were then residents of Baka al-Gharbiya, kidnapped Tamam in August 1984 while he was waiting for a ride near Netanya. They bound him, covered his eyes, and held him for two days.

They then took him to an olive grove near Mevo Dotan, brutally murdered him after holding him for five days, and left him in the grove. As a result of their actions, the four were convicted of a series of offenses and sentenced to life in prison.

State asks court to have terrorists repay treasury for benefits paid to Tamam’s parents

In the lawsuit, filed by attorney Einat Shtirman-Cohen of the Haifa District Attorney’s Office, the state is asking the court to order the terrorists to repay the state treasury for the benefits paid to Tamam’s bereaved parents under the Fallen Soldiers’ Families Law, as well as for future payments the state will bear.

The suit argues that those who kidnapped and murdered Moshe Tamam and caused such profound loss to his family should bear the financial consequences of their actions, not the public as a whole.

The suit also says the terrorists’ actions reflect “a human and moral loss of direction, and harm to the protected social values of the sanctity of life and the integrity of body and soul.” It further states that the acts were severe and shocking, and are even more serious because of the nationalist motive behind them and because they were Israeli citizens. 

The lawsuit also cites a passage from the sentence, in which the court wrote: “Before us is a horrifying act of murder, carried out by citizens of the state, born and raised in it, all while trying to give the act an allegedly political motive. Before us is an act of murder carried out in cold blood, with planning and premeditation, and the reason for his kidnapping and murder is the fact that he was an IDF soldier.”

Another person who returned to Israel from the Democratic Republic of Congo was hospitalized in isolation at Sheba Medical Center on Sunday, after developing symptoms, though health authorities say the risk to the public remains low.

This is the second suspected case in Israel in a few days, after another traveler who returned from the DRC was hospitalized in isolation at Rambam Medical Center due to a fever and headache. The Health Ministry is currently refusing to reveal whether they were infected, but according to estimates, at least the first hospitalized person is probably not infected.

The Health Ministry said that at present, these are only two suspected cases, and that no confirmed case of Ebola has been diagnosed in Israel. In a briefing held by the ministry for reporters, it was stated that there are no additional suspects known to the health system.

However, the ministry did not say whether the laboratory tests of the two hospitalized patients have already been completed, whether preliminary results have been received, or when a final answer will be given regarding the question of whether they were infected with the virus.

The second case was discovered after the traveler returned to Israel two days ago from the DRC, where there is a widespread outbreak of Ebola.

Medical authorities are investigating contacts with suspected Ebola patients

After developing symptoms, he sought medical treatment and was transferred to Sheba, where he is being treated in an isolation room in accordance with procedures established for dealing with high-risk infectious diseases.

His exact medical condition was not disclosed.

In parallel with the medical examinations, a separate epidemiological investigation is being conducted for each of the two cases. As part of the investigations, the flight and travel routes of the two people are being examined, the places they have been since landing in Israel, the people they met, and the possibility that they were exposed to the same source of infection in the DRC.

The ministry is also examining whether there is any connection between the two passengers.

The Health Ministry clarified that anyone who is defined as a relevant contact will receive direct contact from public health officials and instructions according to the level of exposure. Anyone who has not received a contact from the ministry is not required at this stage to enter isolation, be tested, or take any special action.

The first case was discovered after a man who returned to Israel from DRC developed a fever and headache. He was transferred to Rambam, which has been designated a center for receiving suspected cases of this type, and was hospitalized in a negative-pressure room separate from the regular emergency room. In this case too, an investigation has been opened to locate passengers, family members and other people who may have come into contact with him after the symptoms appeared.

The current Ebola outbreak in the DRC and Uganda is caused by the Bundibugyo virus, a strain of Ebola virus. According to the US Centers for Disease Control, as of June 17, 896 confirmed cases and 232 deaths had been reported in the DRC.

The European Centre for Disease Control said the outbreak continues to affect the DRC and Uganda, while the risk to the general population in European and other Western countries remains low.

Ebola not airborne, government may request temporary travel ban

The Ebola virus is not usually transmitted through the air like measles, influenza or coronavirus. Transmission occurs mainly through direct contact of broken skin or mucous membranes with blood, vomit, diarrhea, saliva, semen, or other body fluids of a sick and symptomatic person, as well as through needles, clothing, bedding, and objects contaminated with secretions. 

An infected person is not considered contagious before the onset of symptoms, so during the epidemiological investigation, the time when the fever, headache, or gastrointestinal symptoms began is of particular importance.

The incubation period of the disease usually lasts between two and 21 days. Initial symptoms include fever, severe fatigue, headache, muscle aches, and sore throat. Vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, impaired kidney and liver function, and, in some cases, bleeding may occur. Bleeding does not occur in all patients, so its absence does not rule out the disease.

The Health Ministry has advised travelers who have returned from the DRC or Uganda and develop a fever or unusual symptoms within 21 days of their return to stay home, avoid contact with others, and immediately call the ministry’s hotline at 5400*.

At the beginning of the call, the country of residence and the date of return should be stated. Do not go to a clinic or emergency room independently without prior coordination, to allow the staff to protect themselves and prepare an entry and isolation route.

In recent days, the Health Ministry has asked the Population and Immigration Authority to consider a temporary restriction on the entry of foreigners who have been in the DRC, Uganda, South Sudan, Rwanda or Kenya in the 21 days prior to their arrival. At this time, this is a request that is being considered and not a restriction that has come into effect, and there has been no change in the guidelines for the public.

The five hospitals included in the national preparedness received dedicated protective equipment and were required to prepare isolation rooms and teams that could accommodate suspected cases. The guidelines include reducing the number of staff members who come into contact with the patient, documenting everyone who enters the room, wearing full protective gear, and adhering to the order in which protective equipment is put on and taken off, a stage where exposure could occur if the action is not carried out properly.

Iraq is going through a transition with its new prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi. According to a recent report, he continues to push for the government to have a monopoly on weapons, which would ostensibly rein in Iranian-backed militias.

However, the militias have not yet disarmed, fitting into a similar pattern across the Middle East in which Iranian proxy groups refuse to disarm.

A new article at Al-Ain media in the UAE noted that Iraqi officials are saying that “the monopoly on weapons is non-negotiable.” Iraq has supposedly confirmed that restricting weapons to the state is a firm position that “does not accept compromise.”

As such, the spokesman for the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces, Sabah al-Numan, said on Saturday “that the issue of restricting weapons to the state and dismantling any armed movements outside the framework of the law is an existential issue that is not open to compromise.”

He went on to point out that the understandings with the regional countries represent a practical translation of the new security arrangement. What does this actually mean? That apparently, Iraq will put in place some kind of guarantees to show that it is disarming the groups.

The Iraqi state is in a new stage of ‘absolute sovereignty’

What did the military spokesperson say? “Everyone must realize that the Iraqi state, with its military and security institutions, has completely left the stage of reaction and moved entirely to the stage of strategic deterrence and imposing absolute sovereignty.”

This sounds like a lot of generalized language, making it unclear whether the government will actually fulfill its promises.

Yet, Iraq said that it will close any loopholes that have led to “weakening the rule of law or testing the prestige of the state.” Once again, it is not clear if this means Iraq will move against the Iranian-backed militias, which are technically state-backed paramilitaries. Rather, Iraq will likely claim to be disarming other groups.

Iraq claimed that it has been asserting itself and increasing security at its borders. Furthermore, it claimed to be putting new technologies in place, such as thermal imaging cameras.

Al-Numan went on to say that the “government’s position here is decisive and does not allow for any interpretation; the issue of restricting weapons is in the hands of the state, and dismantling any armed movements outside the framework and guardianship of the joint military command is an existential issue and a sovereign constant that is not subject to compromise or circumvention under any name.”

New committee to address unauthorized weapons

Since June 3, Iraq has had a new joint committee aimed at dealing with the issues of weapons outside of state control. It has also been trying to “disengage” militias from the Popular Mobilization Forces and restrict weapons to state control. How this will happen in practice is not clear.

Meanwhile, according to Iraq’s Shafaq News, the prime minister “decided on Saturday to appoint former national security advisor Qasim al-Araji as his special security advisor.”

Araji was a former minister of the interior in Iraq and a former national security advisor. He is a member of the Badr organization, one of the largest of the militias, and a key part of the PMF.

Badr has numerous brigades within the PMF, the one large militia that the US has not sanctioned. Badr has been close to Iran’s IRGC since the 1980s. The question now is whether Araji’s role has been reduced and whether this could give the government more clout in dealing with the militias.

This decision to change Araji’s role “comes directly after al-Zaidi oversaw the handover ceremony at the National Security Advisory building between the new advisor, Qasim Hassan al-Aboudi, and his predecessor, al-Araji,” the Shafaq report added.

“This move comes as part of a series of sweeping changes made by Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi to senior political and security positions since he took office last May, with the aim of restructuring vital state institutions and activating oversight and security agencies in accordance with his ministerial program,” the report said.

Iraqi media has high hopes that the “new blood” will not enter the system in Baghdad.

United States President Donald Trump weighed in on the potential resignation of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

“Keir Starmer will resign as Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. He failed badly on two very important subjects- IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well! President DJT” the post read.

A report from Britain’s Observer newspaper said Starmer was expected to resign on Monday and set out a timetable for his departure, though a government source contradicted this claim, asserting that Starmer currently remains focused on ‘getting on with the job of governing.’

The threat to Starmer’s position, which has been building for months, increased sharply on Friday when his rival Andy Burnham won a seat in parliament that would allow him to launch a formal leadership challenge.

Trump’s increasing tensions with Starmer

This is not the first time Trump has criticized the UK Prime Minister  in recent months. Tensions between the two leaders have been rising over differing immigration policies and, more prominently, the US’s military campaign in Iran.

Trump posted to Truth in March to criticized Starmer, saying that he helped “ruin” the countries’ historically close relationship after London blocked the US’s initial use ‌of British bases to attack Iran.

In the post, Trump said he “will remember” the lack of British support during the conflict with Iran.

“The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East,” Trump said.

“That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer – But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

Reuters contributed to this report.

The High Court of Justice on Sunday pressed the Knesset and government over whether an overhaul of Israel’s Judicial Selection Committee would place too much power over judicial appointments in political hands, as all 11 sitting Supreme Court justices heard petitions seeking to strike down the law.

The hearing concerns six consolidated petitions against the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary and the Courts Law, passed by the Knesset in March 2025 and scheduled to take effect only with the next Knesset.

The court had previously issued a conditional order, requiring the Knesset and government to explain why the amendment should not be invalidated. The central legal question is whether the change constitutes an “unconstitutional constitutional amendment” – a Basic Law provision that so seriously damages core democratic principles that the court may intervene despite its constitutional status.

Petitioners and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara argue that the law would undermine judicial independence, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. The Knesset and government contend that the reform does not cross that threshold, while also arguing that the challenge is premature because the law does not yet apply.

The dispute centers on who gets to choose Israel’s judges.

Under the current system, the nine-member Judicial Selection Committee includes three Supreme Court justices, two ministers, two MKs, and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association (IBA). Supreme Court appointments require a seven-member majority, while appointments to lower courts require a regular majority.

The new arrangement would remove the IBA representatives and replace them with two public representatives who are lawyers qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, one selected by the coalition and one by the opposition.

For lower-court appointments, the new law would require a six-member majority that includes at least one representative from each of the committee’s three blocs: the judges, coalition representatives, and opposition representatives.

For Supreme Court appointments, a six-member majority would be required, including at least one coalition representative and one opposition representative, but not the support of any of the three sitting justices on the committee.

The law also includes a mechanism intended to break a prolonged deadlock over Supreme Court appointments. If two vacancies remain unfilled for a year, coalition and opposition representatives would each propose candidates, and the other side would be required to select from that list.

Amit warns that these decisions could change the ‘character of the judiciary’

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit said at the outset that the legislation marked a significant change in the way judges are selected, and urged the parties to focus on whether it harmed a foundational principle of Israel’s democratic system: an independent judiciary.

Much of the hearing focused on the concern that judges hoping to advance from the magistrate or district courts to the Supreme Court could come to see political approval as necessary for promotion.

“If I look 10 years ahead, what will a district court judge who wants to reach the Supreme Court have to do?” Justice Alex Stein asked, answering, “find favor in the eyes of politicians, write judgments that politicians like.”

Justice Ruth Ronnen said the law’s rules would inevitably shape the behavior of everyone involved in the system, including judges seeking promotion.

“The law sets the rules of the game,” she said. “They necessarily affect all the players.”

Justice Yechiel Kasher questioned the prospects for an otherwise outstanding district court judge whose political outlook was unknown.

“What are the chances [of advancement] of an excellent, diligent judge whose political direction no one knows being selected?” Kasher asked. “The answer is zero.”

Amit said the court should assess the reform over the long term rather than only in its first years of operation.

“Within a year of the next Knesset being elected, two judges could be selected with ‘chosen by the coalition’ and ‘chosen by the opposition’ written on their foreheads,” Amit said. “Over 15 years, the benches of the Supreme Court will be filled by judges selected only by political actors.”

Such justices, he warned, could eventually become Supreme Court president or deputy president. “Will there be a political chip implanted in every judge who is selected?” Amit asked. “Does that not harm the democratic system Israel has known for nearly 80 years?”

Justice Dafna Barak-Erez said the law was already affecting the present-day appointments process, despite its delayed commencement.

“Anyone with eyes in their head can understand: let us wait a little longer, in a few months the law will come into force, so why appoint Supreme Court justices now?” she said. “This is a reality that is already being shaped today.”

Her comments came against the background of the broader dispute over Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s refusal to convene the existing committee for extended periods to fill vacancies. The High Court ruled last month that Levin must convene the committee to appoint district court judges, following warnings that the shortage of judges was harming court operations.

Israel Bar Association is subject to removal from committee

The justices also closely examined the decision to remove the IBA from the committee.

Attorney Yitzhak Bart, representing the Knesset’s legal counsel, argued that the reform responded to longstanding criticism that elected officials had insufficient influence over judicial selection, as well as concerns about the IBA’s role and alleged conflicts of interest.

Barak-Erez responded that even if such concerns existed, they could have been addressed through narrower safeguards, calling the law a “radical solution.” 

Justice Ofer Grosskopf questioned why alleged wrongdoing involving IBA representatives should lead to their removal from the committee, noting that corruption allegations against elected officials had also been proven in court.

During arguments for the government, attorney Dr. Yaakov Ben-Shemesh maintained that political participation in appointments does not inherently undermine professionalism or judicial independence.

He argued that elected officials are entrusted with many major public appointments and should not be presumed incapable of considering professional merit.

Amit rejected a comparison between judicial appointments and executive appointments, arguing that judges must remain institutionally independent from the government.

“There is no claim here that politicians are corrupt,” Amit said. Rather, he explained, “there is a combination of political and professional considerations.” Judges and lawyers, he said, were better equipped than politicians to evaluate judicial candidates’ professional work because they see them in courtrooms and are familiar with their decisions.

Justice Khaled Kabub noted that the issue was not whether politicians currently had any role in appointments, but the balance between political and professional considerations.

Once IBA representatives were removed and the Supreme Court justices no longer had to support Supreme Court appointments, he said, the concern was that political considerations would become dominant.

Justice Yael Willner questioned whether the deadlock-breaking mechanism created an incentive for coalition and opposition representatives to avoid compromise and ultimately choose candidates through their own political bargaining.

The government and Knesset have argued that the law seeks to create broader agreement across political camps, rather than give the coalition unilateral control.

Bart said judicial review should not be based on predictions about future conduct and argued that public representatives also have an interest in appointing qualified judges.

The government also argued that the court should wait until after the next election, when a new Knesset could amend or repeal the law before it comes into force.

Attorney Efi Michaeli, representing the government, described the delayed implementation as a form of public and political confirmation through the next election.

Amit pushed back, saying the law did not contain a formal requirement that the next Knesset reapprove it.

“If the law is problematic, what difference does it make whether it is this Knesset or the next Knesset?” he asked.

Baharav-Miara’s representative argued that the delayed effective date did not eliminate the constitutional problem. The attorney-general’s position is that the amendment reverses the existing balance between professional and political members of the committee and creates incentives that could influence both candidates and serving judges.

Representatives of the petitioners, including the IBA, civil-rights organizations, and opposition MKs, argued that the law would damage public confidence in the courts and leave judges dependent on political actors for appointment and promotion.

The hearing was briefly disrupted when Likud MK Tally Gotliv repeatedly interrupted from the audience. After warnings from Amit, court security removed her from the courtroom.

On Sunday afternoon, Levin said Amit’s comments about judges not being promoted for political reasons reflected what he called the current system’s improper veto over candidates such as Dr. Aviad Bakshi and Dr. Rafi Biton.

Levin argued that the amendment was designed to end what he described as the exclusion of qualified candidates for political and personal reasons. He also called on the Knesset to advance a proposal declaring that the High Court lacks authority to intervene in Basic Laws and that any intervention in the Judicial Selection Committee amendment would be void.

Three people were killed on Saturday after their single-engine aircraft crashed in a wooded area near Bowie, Maryland, according to Maryland State Police.

The three people on board were Israelis, according to Israeli media reports on Sunday, citing the Foreign Ministry.

An NBC report cited the police as saying that the aircraft was found Sunday morning after crashing near a townhouse community and local playground.

.@MDSP on scene of a fatal single engine plane crash in Bowie. PIO on scene for an 8am briefing. Media staging at Annapolis Road and Superior Lane.

— MD State Police (@MDSP) June 21, 2026

Police did not release the identities of the deceased, all of whom were declared dead on the scene.

The crash was initially reported at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday via iPhone alert, NBC cited Prince George’s County Public Safety Communications as saying.

The pilot and passengers of the small aircraft were on a training flight when the crash occured, NBC reported, noting that the aircraft belonged to a Montgomery County flight school.

The Baltimore Sun identified the aircraft as a Piper PA-28, a common training aircraft in the United States. 

Jewish tech entrepreneur dies in Texas crash

On Tuesday, a small jet plane carrying six people crashed into a vehicle on a highway in Laredo, Texas, authorities said.

One person was killed in the crash, named by the Associated Press on Wednesday as Austin tech entrepreneur Joshua Baer.

In addition, five first responders were hospitalized for smoke inhalation, and the passengers were hospitalized for minor injuries.

Reuters contributed to this report.

No question, Israel and the IDF had to respond and had to respond strongly when Hezbollah attacked the Jewish state on March 2, two days after Israel started attacking Iran.

Most Israeli defense officials also agree that the IDF needed to invade southern Lebanon again to eliminate any possible invasion threat, to make it harder for Hezbollah to strike Israeli civilian towns in the North, to put pressure on Hezbollah to either disarm or reduce its activities threatening Israel, and maybe to advance Israel-Lebanese government normalization efforts.

But what has Israel been doing in southern Lebanon since the April 7 ceasefire with Iran?

And even more controversial, what has Israel been doing in southern Lebanon since the framework deal last Wednesday with Iran?

These questions are not about an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon for nothing.

But they are about what exactly it is that Israel can actually get in return for a full or partial withdrawal, as compared to the inflated expectations that top political officials and some top defense officials have provided to the public.

In addition, these questions are about how far into southern Lebanon should the IDF have gone to achieve these objectives, at what points might the IDF have continued for tactical gains leading to strategic losses, and at what point or points should the IDF have just stopped shooting and advancing because the policies of US President Donald Trump had made it clear that he was imposign a ceiling on what we could get from additional fighting in that arena.

A growing number of IDF officials are raising questions

A rising number of Israeli defense officials are raising these questions, though some do not want to go public because, in a post-October 7 world, sometimes hysteria pervades any idea that might hint at accommodating (or negotiating) with the enemy.

The latest extremely dubious idea making rounds from many otherwise highly intelligent and respectable commentators is that if the IDF makes a single negotiation or concession in Lebanon, that suddenly Hamas in Gaza will immediately threaten Israel and be under Iran’s umbrella, and that next even Palestinians in the West Bank will be under this umbrella. 

The premise of this domino effect theory (during the Cold War, the communism domino effect theory itself eventually fell like a house of cards) is that Israel’s power in Gaza and the West Bank, and everything it has done in those locations since October 7 is meaningless.

This premise falls apart in the face of actual facts.

Iran has made no attempt to intervene in Gaza or in the West Bank.

In contrast, within days of Israel assassinating Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah in fall 2024, Iran fired close to 200 ballistic missiles at Israel.

Put differently, the Islamic Republic has always been protective of Hezbollah, its main Shiite ally and proxy of around 45 years, and has never been willing to start a direct fight with Israel relating to Gaza or the West Bank.

And the reasons are obvious why: Hamas in Gaza and West Bank Palestinians are Sunnis who are not always allied with Iran, and have short-term transactional allegiances to and with it.

Israel fights with these Palestinians almost non-stop, with periodic breaks, whereas the Jewish state had no big conflicts with Hezbollah from 2006-2023.

Iran will try to help Hezbollah because it knows Israel’s commitment in Lebanon is weak, less important, and less of a major issue in the first place for the IDF, whereas it is of extreme importance to the Islamic regime.

Also, if no one noticed, Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank Palestinians literally cannot launch long-term threats on Israel.

They have not, in meaningful numbers, since January 2024.

If they could, they would, but they cannot, so they won’t.

This does not mean they are not threats, but to jump from negotiating over Lebanon to the end of the world on all borders just ignores that the IDF has changed the reality on the various Palestinian fronts.

But back to questions about what IDF soldiers are accomplishing (or not accomplishing) in southern Lebanon.

Post-October 7 Hezbollah

The first Israeli sin with Hezbollah in the post-October 7 “concept” was that the IDF, by force alone, would be able to fully disarm Hezbollah.

Almost no Israeli defense officials ever believed this.

There is an interesting debate between Israeli defense officials who believed and believe that Hezbollah could be convinced not to rearm as much with fancy long range precision missiles, or that maybe they could be forced to keep rockets and missiles beyond the Zahrani River (north of the Litani River), or that normalization with Lebanon could be advanced, or that the chances of Hezbollah not returning to southern Lebanon would be higher, based on IDF actions in southern Lebanon.

But what all of these scenarios – which can be referred to as mediocre results – have in common is that no IDF action in this war was going to end Hezbollah as a threat (ending Hezbollah as a threat would involved a full occupation of Lebanon by the IDF, which no IDF officials think is within its capacity, still might not work, and would very likely completely derail relations with the US.)

Once one accepts that some Hezbollah threat will continue to exist, one also has to accept that using deterrence (a very bad word in Israel and defense circles after October 7) will be part of the formula, and that IDF actions in southern Lebanon should be evaluated based on how much they can improve that imperfect deterrence.

This also means that any actions that do not give a clear additional benefit might be in vain.

All of this brings us up to April 7.

Hezbollah, for a short time, embraced a complete ceasefire when Iran, the US, and Israel agreed to that ceasefire.

If we are being honest, part of what led to Hezbollah continuing to attack the IDF, and eventually northern Israel, after April 7, was Israel and the IDF’s decision to continue aggressive actions in southern Lebanon, instead of completely halting IDF soldiers where they stood.

Top IDF sources told the Jerusalem Post that the decision was made to respect the ceasefire north of southern Lebanon, but not in areas where the IDF was already operating.

The purpose was to keep the pressure on Hezbollah about it continuing to lose its assets and fighters in southern Lebanon in order to achieve some of the possible mediocre results.

Has Israel, in 10 weeks since April 7, come any closer to achieving any of those results?

It has killed several hundred more Hezbollah fighters, destroyed many more Hezbollah tunnels and weapons, and eventually even taken over some areas beyond the Litani River and Wadi Saluki, all of which are sound tactical wins.

But other than possibly advancing the normalization process with the Lebanese government, which might have happened anyway based merely on the IDF simply holding its already pretty advanced positions in southern Lebanon as of April 7, it is unclear that any of these military moves since April 7 have netted Israel any strategic gains toward even achieving its mediocre goals.

Some Israeli defense officials warned about this dilemma as early as April 7.

More to do with domestic Israeli politics?

According to some of these officials. The bigger reason the IDF was continuing to expand its activities in Lebanon after April 7 had more to do with domestic Israeli politics – wanting to show Israel was still tough somewhere even if Trump was forcing it to stop bombing Iran – or with some Israeli defense officials fearing that if they did not continue aggressive moves, they would be later accused of falling into October 7 passivity.

If these objections to Israel’s aggressive moves since April 7 are correct, then the strategy of trying to keep fighting south of the Litani River after April 7 was a failure.

Now, once the IDF kept fighting south of the Litani River and Hezbollah decided to fight back and itself re-break the ceasefire, the military and the Israeli government had a new dilemma: escalate to try to de-escalate or recognize that trying to ignore the ceasefire south of the Litani River had been an error, and back off, accepting a ceasefire there as well.

Israel and the IDF chose to escalate with the hope that this would scare Hezbollah into de-escalating and accepting its aggressive actions in southern Lebanon as long as it left Hezbollah alone north of the Litani River and especially in Beirut.

Hezbollah refused this “deal.”

Iran also refused this “deal.”

But as of Wednesday of last week, when the US and Tehran signed a new framework agreement, Washington had not accepted the Islamic regime’s demand that Israel would have to withdraw from southern Lebanon for nothing.

Rather, it appeared that Trump would use the Israel-Lebanon theater to pressure Iran to comply with the nuclear concessions it has committed to and potentially to move normalization forward with the Lebanese government.

Hopefully, these items are still on the table.

However, the Israeli government and the IDF have taken some particular risks in Lebanon since Wednesday. 

They decided to seize a few more key topographic areas in southern Lebanon, such as Ali Taher Ridge in the East near Nabatieh, Tibnin in the center further north of Bint Jbeil, and in the west near valleys approaching the city of Tyre.

All of these areas have tactical significance should the IDF need to engage Hezbollah in battle in the near future. They either provide new high ground positions or take away areas which would be ideal for Hezbollah to use for launching drones and rockets against nearby IDF positions in southern Lebanon.

In Tibnin, the IDF was also able to surround some 30 or so Hezbollah fighters who were trapped from leaving an underground layer.

There has been a constant back and forth of retaliations between the sides since April 7, and in some instances Hezbollah violated a new temporary ceasefire more than the IDF, but in this particular case, the IDF move to trap the Hezbollah fighters was especially aggressive and probably led to Hezbollah’s unusually aggressive volley of 50 rockets over the weekend (whereas most days they have “only” been launching a couple of drones.)

Just since Wednesday of last week, several IDF soldiers have died, and dozens have been wounded.

Was this worth it to slightly improve the tactical situation once Trump had imposed a deal that made it clear that Israel’s best-case results would be mediocre?

Once again, the question is not about what is right, fair, or just – If that were the question, someone would snap their fingers, and Hezbollah would disappear.

The hard-nosed question which should have been asked and likely been decisive on April 7 and again on Wednesday of last week was: given the limits imposed on Israel by Trump, by Iran, and its own limited (however impressive) forces, should Israel have pushed to keep fighting and expanding its control of new nearby areas in southern Lebanon or should it have embraced a ceasefire in all of Lebanon, even the South?

All top Israeli defense officials would agree that Israel and the IDF should not withdraw fully or partially from southern Lebanon without getting some kind of mediocre goal as a price.

And if Hezbollah tries to smuggle in new precision long-range weapons, they would all support Israel returning to targeted strikes to prevent such a buildup as a lesson from the 2006 Second Lebanon war, when Israel ignored Hezbollah’s rearming, allowing its rocket arsenal to grow into a 150,000 rocket colossus.

But if Israel and the IDF are unrealistic about what that price will be and continue to think tactically, instead of strategically, about new military actions going forward, it will get harder and harder to argue that some soldiers will not be dying in vain.

After two rounds of war with Iran exposed critical gaps in how rescue teams accessed structural information at missile‑strike sites, Israeli researchers have developed an artificial intelligence system designed to give first responders near‑instant building data. This capability could sharply reduce the time needed to reach survivors trapped under collapsed homes.

The chaos of war, of buildings collapsed by Iranian ballistic missile fire, underscored how little real‑time structural information was available to rescue units on the ground, prompting researchers to accelerate work they had already begun on Israel’s archive of architectural records. 

The project was developed by researchers from the Technion’s Housing Lab, including Prof. Yael Allweil, Dr. Yiftach Ashkenazi, and architect Tal Sadeh, in collaboration with Prof. Moshe Lavee and Liat Bonen from the Elijah Lab at the University of Haifa. 

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Allweil, a professor of architecture at the Technion, said her team had spent years reviewing building permits, master plans, and other large urban datasets, only for the war to suddenly make their expertise indispensable. 

“It was a surprise for us, as historians, to be relevant right now,” she said.

Allweil said the project by the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology and the University of Haifa took on new urgency during Operation Roaring Lion, when colleagues abroad asked how to locate survivors in damaged buildings and how to understand structural layouts quickly enough to assist rescue teams. 

Thousands of missiles were fired by Iran during both Operation Rising Lion in June 2025 and Operation Roaring Lion in March 2026. According to the Tax Authority, 39,715 claims were filed after Operation Rising Lion in June 2025 regarding homes being struck by Iranian missiles. Until now, it has taken emergency teams, who rely on printed building permits stored in municipal archives, at least 30 minutes to safely enter a building.

“Each city has an emergency war room, and whenever a building was hit, people would print out the building permit and send it by courier to get it to the location for first responders,” she said. “The first responders needed those printouts before they could even go in, and that took around 30 minutes. Why not know within 30 seconds and be able to assess the situation quicker, especially if there’s more than one site?”

Recognizing the challenge, Allweil and her team began building a new dataset using tools they developed to read complex, rigid building information. They then used AI systems capable of interrogating that data. 

“We knew what to ask, to what it could be applied,” she said.

With the IDF’s Home Front Command and municipalities often holding different sets of information, the system was “chaotic,” Allweil said. 

The new platform is a web‑based application accessible via a link and built entirely from public data. It allows rescuers to view a building map, see whether apartments contain shelters, and examine individual plans with key structural details. The system can operate in any language and is designed for use in disaster situations worldwide.

“Knowing the basics about the building is extremely important to first responders,” Allweil said.

The tool was developed during the last war and is now being tested with the Nahariya Municipality, where the city engineer is helping verify the platform. 

“Buildings in Nahariya are hit constantly,” Allweil told the Post. Despite a ceasefire with Iran currently holding, the goal is to refine the system and expand its use to additional cities.

“Saving lives makes me super motivated,” she said.

Berlin Police have arrested a 31-year-old man for an antisemitic attack on several people in Charlottenburg on Saturday.  

According to the investigation so far, at approximately 3:15 p.m. the reportedly Arab attacker followed a 47-year-old Jewish man and two children who were accompanying him, shouting antisemitic insults and spitting at them.

When the older man, who was wearing a kippah, confronted him, the younger man allegedly struck him in the face. Several people then rushed to the scene to help, including a 45-year-old man and a 53-year-old woman.

The attacker allegedly directed antisemitic insults and threats at the woman, after which a physical altercation broke out between him and the 45-year-old man.

The Berlin State Criminal Police Office State Security Division is now conducting the investigation.

Antisemitic incidents hit an all-time high in Germany

This comes amid as antisemitic incidents hit an all-time high in Germany, according to the new annual report by antisemitism watchdog RIAS.

In 2025, RIAS recorded 8,725 antisemitic incidents, equating to roughly 24 cases per day.

Across the year, RIAS documented 178 physical attacks and 257 threats. For example, in the city of Kehl, four members of a Jewish community were insulted and spat on outside a Jewish prayer room. In the state of Hesse, a rabbi was shoved in a supermarket in front of his children and had his phone snatched.

In addition, there were four cases of extreme violence, including a terrorist attack at the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. 

The economic consequences of Hezbollah’s decision to drag Lebanon into another war on behalf of the Islamic Republic have the terror group’s Shiite support base increasingly looking to ideological alternatives, according to an assessment published by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC).

Still recovering from the cost of Hezbollah’s decision to attack Israel on October 8, 2023, in support of its terror ally Hamas’s attacks on southern Israel, confidence in Hezbollah’s ability to pay the cumulative cost of damage is quickly dampening, and some of its supporter base are beginning to look for political alternatives.

Many want to see a group emerge that is loyal to Beirut, seeking to reduce Iran’s control over Lebanon, though such desires have yet to materialize into a real alternative, ITIC noted in its assessment.

The Forum of Shi’ite Lebanese, established in June 2025, has manifested as a potential future alternative, emphasizing the need to return the powers of security, war and peace to the Lebanese state, strengthen the Lebanese army, and establish a broad national partnership of all components of Lebanese society. The group advocated for positive, but not subordinate, relations with Iran.

A ‘standstill’ in Lebanon

Lieutenant-Colonel (res.) Dr. Moran Levavoni, a researcher with the Institute for National Security Studies, explained to The Jerusalem Post that there was still very much a “standstill” in Lebanon, especially given Iran’s recent success in negotiations with the United States.

“We are in a sort of a standstill. While Hezbollah supporters are celebrating the victory of Iran and especially the approval of Trump to the Iranian victory and patronage over Lebanon, its opponents are very strict with the notion that they don’t want to have Iranian sovereignty over Lebanon,” Levanoni highlighted.

The Islamic Republic asserted during negotiations that it expected a ceasefire on all fronts, including Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The agreement with Washington came as Beirut negotiated its own agreement with Israel through the United States, a course of action that had Hezbollah threatening civil war.

Jerusalem agreed to a ceasefire with the terror group on Friday, though Hezbollah quickly violated the ceasefire on Friday and Saturday by launching waves of attacks on IDF troops in southern Lebanon. One soldier was killed and 13 injured.

Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s violations, strikes on several Hezbollah terrorists and terror infrastructure sites, saw more than 80 people killed, according to Lebanon’s health ministry.

Civilians have often been forced to pay the price for Hezbollah’s actions, ITIC noted. Between October 8, 2023, and November 27, 2024, more than 3,700 were killed, about 30% of them women and children. Though the majority of those killed were understood to be Hezbollah operatives, the conflict also saw nearly 900,000 people were displaced, the overwhelming majority from Lebanon’s Shi’ite areas. This latest round has also seen around 20% of Lebanon’s population internally displaced, according to UN figures.

The reality of the financial consequences has left Hezbollah’s economic arm struggling to compensate those impacted by its actions, ITIC claimed. In addition to high demand, international sanctions and Israeli attacks have weakened Hezbollah’s ability to provide support.

Hezbollah’s support base forced to return to conflict zones

Lebanese reports suggest that civilians in Hezbollah’s support base have been forced to return to conflict zones, no longer able to pay the price of relocation. A poll by Statistics Lebanon showed the economy remains Lebanon’s deepest concern, and a poll by the International Information Company found that around 49% want to see a peace agreement with Israel, an increase of 24% from the year prior.

“The continuing deterioration in living conditions and the economic resilience of families, most of whom have still not recovered from the consequences of the war “in support for the Gaza Strip,” is increasing frustration and the erosion or trust, and is fertile ground for the growing criticism of the conflict and the price Lebanese society in general, and the Shi’ite community in particular, are required to pay,” ITIC noted.

Those in Dahiyeh al-Janoubia, finally able to return home, were forced to flee again in early June, creating a sense of psychological exhaustion, the center assessed, and numerous families have begun to accept that they cannot provide a stable future for their children in these communities. Lebanese journalist Nancy al-Laqis predicted the impact on the displaced generation would be felt in the children’s social identities, creating a gap between ideological narratives and the harsh reality they live.

Highlighting this fall from grace is Hezbollah’s failed Beirut rally in May. A body affiliated with the group managed to gather only dozens of Hezbollah supporters, while previous demonstrations have seen thousands in attendance.

Additionally, last month, Hezbollah quietly allowed entry of the Lebanese army for enforcement activity in the heart of the Dahiyeh al-Janoubia, the organization’s stronghold in Beirut. Al-Sharq al-Aswat reported that Hezbollah didn’t confront the move because of growing public sensitivity.

Though reports have yet to materialize on how the deal will impact Hezbollah, the consequences of months of displacement and years of instability will likely hold for many, despite what has been largely viewed as an Iranian victory.

Yaacov Agam, the Israeli artist who was recognized around the world as one of the founders of the kinetic art movement and whose work became a treasured part of the country’s culture, died on Sunday at the age of 98.

His funeral will take place Monday at the Rehovot Cemetery at 5:00 p.m. and his body will lie in state at the Agam Museum in Rishon Lezion from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Culture and Sport Minister Miki Zohar released a statement on X/Twitter on Sunday: “I was deeply saddened to receive the news of the passing of the artist Yaakov Agam, recipient of the Israel Prize and one of the most prominent and influential Israeli artists in the world.”

“Agam was a groundbreaking artist who gave Israeli creation a unique and inspiring language. His artistic legacy will continue to illuminate and influence generations of creators in Israel and around the world. On behalf of the Ministry of Culture and Sport, I extend condolences to his family, friends, and all art lovers in Israel.”

Born Yaacov Gibstein in Rishon Lezion on May 11, 1928, Agam’s work combined color, movement, light, and viewer engagement into an iconic style, one that was easily enjoyed by onlookers of all ages, no matter how much they knew about art. His works, often built around shifting perspectives, seemed to change depending on where the viewer stood, inviting the viewer into a dialogue with the art.

In 2026, he received the Israel Prize for Visual Arts: Painting, Sculpture, and Photography, Israel’s highest cultural honor. The prize committee praised his decades-long contribution to Israeli and international art and said he had broken the boundaries of traditional visual art while pioneering new languages in kinetic art and Op Art, a style that uses shapes, patterns, colors, and lines to create optical illusions.

Agam’s best-known Israeli work was the Fire and Water Fountain in Tel Aviv’s Dizengoff Square, a kinetic sculpture that combined vividly colored images, movement, water, and music. Although it was eventually removed, restored, and later returned without all its original elements, it remained one of the most recognizable public artworks in Israel.

“My aim is to show the visible as possibility in a state of perpetual becoming,” Yaacov Agam  said, in a widely referenced quote.

Arrested by the British in 1946, later moved to Paris

Agam was born into a religious family, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua Gibstein and Kandel Yocheved Gibstein. As a child, he studied in a religious school. When he was a teenager, he was arrested by the British during the Black Sabbath raids of 1946 and held for several months at the Latrun detention camp.

He went on to study art at the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem, where he was a student of Mordecai Ardon. Later, he studied in Zurich with Johannes Itten, one of the central figures associated with the Bauhaus movement, and moved to Paris, where he lived for decades, in the 1950s.

Early in his career, Agam helped develop Op Art, and at 27, he showed colorful wooden reliefs in the landmark Paris exhibition Le Mouvement, alongside such artists as Marcel Duchamp, Jean Tinguely, and Alexander Calder, that featured works whose appearance changed according to the viewer’s position, a technique that became his trademark.

Although most of his art was abstract, Agam repeatedly connected the concepts behind his work to Jewish thought and mysticism.

Over the decades, his works were exhibited and installed around the world. He had retrospectives at the Musée National d’Art Moderne in Paris and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam in 1973, and at the Guggenheim Museum in New York in 1980. His works were also displayed at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Centre Pompidou in Paris, and other major museums.

In Paris, he created works for the Élysée Palace and a musical fountain at La Défense. In Israel, his works include Jacob’s Ladder at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem, the colorful façade of the Dan Hotel in Tel Aviv which can be seen from the beach, and Eighteen Levels at the Israel Museum’s Billy Rose Art Garden, as well as works at Sheba Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Bar-Ilan University, the President’s Residence, and the Western Wall plaza.

He also designed stamps, created the “Agamograph” display technique that used Plexiglass, developed a visual education method for young children, and designed the trophy presented by Dana International to the winner of the 1999 Eurovision Song Contest in Jerusalem.

Permanent institution dedicated to Agam’s work

In 2017, the Yaacov Agam Museum of Art opened in his hometown of Rishon Lezion, giving Israel a permanent institution dedicated to his work.

Agam was also honored internationally, receiving the first prize for artistic research at the São Paulo Biennale in 1963 and several French honors, including commander of the Order of Arts and Letters and chevalier of the Legion of Honor.

He married his late wife, Clila, in Paris in 1954. They had three children, including photographer Ron Agam and musician Oram Agam. His brother, Hanania Gibstein, served as mayor of Rishon Lezion.

His art is enjoyed on a daily basis by people strolling all over Israel and many cities around the world. The director of the Agam Museum, Gilad Meltzer, was quoted on the Tel Aviv Museum of Art website as saying, “In the spirit of the artist, a visit to the museum will encourage a multiplicity of views and points of view, emphasizing the universal language of art and the unique and groundbreaking qualities of his work.”

 Basia Monka contributed to this report. 

Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana on Sunday declined a High Court of Justice proposal to hold a repeat election for state comptroller, according to a notice filed on the Knesset’s behalf.

The notice said the proposal, raised by the court at the end of Thursday’s hearing, had been conveyed to Ohana. It added that he decided not to hold another vote for the position, citing arguments made in the Knesset’s preliminary response to the petitions and during the hearing.

“The Knesset has already had its say,” Ohana wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Justices to decide on intervention

The decision returns the case to the High Court panel of Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg and Justices Gila Canfy-Steinitz and Ruth Ronnen, which indicated on Thursday that it intended to issue a conditional order focused on whether the secrecy of the ballot had been compromised.

A conditional order would require the respondents to explain why the election should not be canceled, and might result in another hearing. It would not, by itself, invalidate Rabello’s appointment.

The petitions challenge the June 3 vote in which attorney Michael Rabello, a longtime lawyer for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was chosen to succeed State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman.

The initial ballot ended with retired Supreme Court justice Yosef Elron receiving 60 votes and Rabello receiving 57, leaving both candidates one vote short of the 61 required for election. A subsequent ballot was halted and restarted amid controversy over several Likud MKs documenting their votes behind the curtain.

Rabello wins final vote

Rabello then won the final vote by 61 votes to 57.

Petitioners argue that the recordings breached the legally required secrecy of the ballot and turned the election into a political loyalty test, preventing MKs from voting freely and without pressure to prove how they voted.

The Knesset and Likud have denied that there was evidence MKs were instructed to photograph or film their ballots. During Thursday’s hearing, Knesset representative attorney Yitzhak Bart said that any such instruction would be unlawful and could affect the validity of the election, but maintained that the petitioners had not proven one was given.

At the end of the hearing, Sohlberg said an “undesirable cloud” hung over the vote and that some of the ballots appeared “problematic on their face.” He proposed that the Knesset repeat the process through a “clean and proper procedure,” while making clear that the court was considering an order only on the secrecy issue.

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, one of the petitioners, criticized Ohana’s decision, saying, “Anyone who refuses to vote again in a clean process admits that the first vote was tainted.” 

The petitions also raise concerns over Rabello’s longstanding professional ties to Netanyahu, Likud, and state bodies. However, the panel indicated that it was less inclined to intervene in the appointment on conflict-of-interest grounds at this stage, suggesting that those concerns could be addressed through a future conflict-of-interest arrangement.

Rabello is expected to take office when Englman’s term ends at the beginning of July, unless the court intervenes.
 

Damascus is relying on the Assad-era Decree 66 to detain activists like Hassan Akkad, sources told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Human rights activist and award-winning documentarian Akkad was arrested in Damascus on Wednesday over social media posts in which he called on wealthy businessmen to fulfill financial pledges made to help rebuild Syria, according to associates of Akkad and Arab media reports.

The legislation penalizes slander, defamation, and publishing content deemed a “crime against the Constitution,” though critics claim it has often been used to silence journalists and activists who criticize the authorities.

“This is a case that explains to us how the new authority uses Assad regime laws to prosecute opponents who don’t agree with them under Decree 66,” an expert who asked to remain anonymous said. “There should be a judicial reform because we all know these kinds of laws were used as a tool to prosecute people from the regime…The Assad regime only wanted one narrative to be heard.”

Akkad, the founder of the ‘Give Us the Money That You Owe!’ campaign, was arrested after a complaint was filed by Syrian journalist and presenter Mousa al-Omar, Al Jazeera reported.

“I am sorry for what happened to Hassan as a result of his mistakes; I followed the legal path under the cybercrime law… Everything I pledged, amounting to $700,000 in projects and cash, was paid in the donations,” al-Omar told the Qatar-owned media site, adding that he instructed his lawyers to drop the legal complaint.

Earlier this month, Akkad alluded to issues that were ‘bigger than myself and Mousa al-Omar” on his Instagram account, promising to share more information when it became safe for him to do so.

Public Prosecutor Judge Hossam Khattab told Al Jazeera that the case against Akkad was dropped, but the Qatari media site reported the activist remained in detention.

Akkad is facing multiple legal cases

Witnesses claimed that plainclothes officers arrested him at a cafe in the capital while he was meeting with several journalists. Celine Kasem, one of the activists at the meeting, claimed the officers failed to provide any identification, an arrest warrant, or any documentation proving they could legally detain Akkad.

“Hassan was taken into custody. Today, his lawyers are with him as he faces multiple legal cases. The fact that we are still operating under the same legal framework inherited from the Assad regime is deeply disappointing,” she stated online. “It is unfair to the sacrifices made during our revolution & to the people who suffered under these laws & regulations. We all know that drafting a new constitution & reforming an entire legal system takes time. But until then, the law should not be abused.”

Akkad, who also enjoys British citizenship, was previously imprisoned by Assad’s regime for documenting anti-government protests. He fled Syria in 2015 after being physically assaulted by members of the regime, and went on to share his story in the Bafta-winning BBC documentary Exodus: Our Journey to Europe. He then went on to co-direct the Netflix documentary Convergence: Courage in a Crisis.

Yasser Abbas, the spokesperson for the Association for the Repeal of Decree 66, and Engineer Ibrahim Sheikh Al-Shabab, representative of the Mezzeh People’s Committees, were both also detained in early June under Decree 66, Alahmad shared. Authorities alleged the men carried out acts of “systematic incitement,” “defamation,” “spreading false news via the internet and satellite channels,” “undermining the reputation and prestige of a public administration,” and “inciting riots” over their criticism of the decree.

STJ alleged that the arrests were a message to those considering objecting to public policies, criticizing the governorate’s approach, or organizing to demand their rights, that they could be detained based on “vague legal texts.”

Mayor David Azoulay’s office in Metula, Israel’s northernmost town, features a portrait of US President Donald Trump and an American flag. It’s not an act of praise, but ironic protest.

“Over the past four months, Israel’s policy has been driven entirely by Trump,” said Azoulay, from his office on the Lebanese border, which has become the central sticking point in US-Iranian negotiations to end the war. “Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu is trapped in a bear hug that is slowly suffocating us Israelis. Case in point: the memorandum of understanding with Iran.”

That’s especially true in northern Israel, which is at the heart of the fight between Israel and Hezbollah that even on Friday derailed the first round of peace talks between the US and Iran in Switzerland. It’s also become a source of tension in Netanyahu’s relationship with Trump, who has spent the week publicly slamming the Israeli premier and what he called Israel’s “vicious” approach to Lebanon.

The Galilee Panhandle, a strategic finger of land wedged between the Lebanese and Syrian borders, used to house 50,000 Israeli Jews before three years of Hezbollah rocket attacks left its communities hollowed out. While not entirely deserted, many residents have yet to return, and the streets sit empty amid widespread business closures.

In Metula, which was evacuated in October 2023 on fear that Hezbollah would attempt a deadly cross-border infiltration similar to the Hamas assault from Gaza, only two-thirds of the residents have returned. Those who did harbor little faith that real change is feasible.

“There won’t be a ceasefire; it will just keep going like this, with intermittent rocket fire trickling down on us,” said Kobi Sarmili, a 63-year-old chicken farmer from Margaliot, a town near the border. “If they pull the troops out, then what? It will be a living hell. Trump is the one calling the shots for us, no one else. He is running our country.”

War with Hezbollah ‘separate’ from Iran war

Miry Menashe, a 41-year-old coffee shop owner who moved to Metula four years ago, reflected the general unease with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which Trump signed on Wednesday and sets off a 60-day window for peace talks. While the document calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, residents can still see and hear fighting across the border. 

She echoed the Israeli government line that the Israeli war against Hezbollah is separate from the Iran war.

“If the US wants to be part of the solution rather than enforcing a ceasefire on us, it must compel Lebanon to deploy its army to southern Lebanon. Train them, arm them, and give them the resources they need,” said Menashe. “Mr. Trump, if you want to be a friend, be a friend; if you want to be a foe, be a foe. Don’t be both.”

The shift in Trump’s popularity among Israelis is closely entwined with Netanyahu’s domestic standing. 

Last October, when Trump orchestrated a Gaza ceasefire and pressured Netanyahu to end a two-year war in exchange for the release of nearly two dozen living Israeli hostages, two-thirds of Israelis believed the US leader prioritized Israel’s security needs. That sentiment has now reversed; 71% of Israelis believe the US president could abandon Israel’s interests in a future Iran deal.

Netanyahu’s Likud party and his ruling coalition , the most nationalist and religious in the country’s history , have been slipping in the polls since reclaiming power in 2022, and any momentum they regained has eroded recently. For two weeks, opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot has outpaced Netanyahu in opinion polls of who is better suited to lead the country.

Vance spars with Israeli politicians over Iran deal

On Thursday, in an unprecedented rebuke, US Vice President JD Vance hit back at Israeli politicians who’ve criticized the interim deal, making veiled reference to how far Israel’s international reputation has fallen since its war in Gaza.

“Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” Vance said at the White House. “If I was in the Cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

Vance suggested Israel needs to address its security needs via diplomacy as well as military operations, saying “you can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem,” echoing some of Israel’s harshest critics.

The next day, after the clashes at the border worsened overnight, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was blunt about what he hopes is his government’s approach: “For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!” he wrote on X/Twitter.

על כל דמעה של אמא ישראלית, אלף אמהות לבנוניות צריכות לבכות. לבנון כולה צריכה לבעור!

עם כל הכבוד לאמריקאים, ישראל חייבת להבהיר לעולם כולו שדם בנינו וביטחון אזרחנו איננו הפקר. לבנון כולה צריכה לבעור. חובתנו העליונה היא להגן על אזרחי ישראל ועל חיילי צה״ל, והמחויבות הזו קודמת לכל…

— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) June 19, 2026

In the 1970s and 1980s, Kiryat Shmona, the largest city in the Galilee Panhandle, became a prominent symbol of Israel’s ongoing struggle against cross-border terrorism, weathering attacks by Palestinian militant groups from Lebanese territory.

The threat later transitioned into decades of conflict with Hezbollah.

Eliav Raichbach, the owner of a car shop born and bred in Kiryat Shmona, chose to stay even after his garage took a direct rocket hit in October 2024. 

“I’ve lived through every war here,” he said, “but today’s situation is the worst. I estimate that 40% of Kiryat Shmona’s businesses have not reopened and half the residents who evacuated at the start of the war haven’t returned.”

Polling data indicates that the backlash against government policies is striking at Likud’s core electoral base. This marks a severe shift for places like Kiryat Shmona , a staunch Likud stronghold where the party won nearly 50% of the vote in the last election , and a significant portion of Metula, which backed the ruling coalition.

Miry and Raichbach are both former Netanyahu supporters who stopped backing him after his indictment in a graft trial six years ago.

“There is no such thing as an irreplaceable man , even Bibi has a replacement,” says Raichbach. “He was once good for Israel, but that’s no longer the case.”

A 19-year-old Florida man was arrested after authorities said he sprayed two Jewish pedestrians with liquid from a water gun in northeast Miami-Dade County, in what police are treating as a hate crime.

Amir Ayesh, of Plantation, Florida, is expected to face two felony counts of battery with prejudice, according to the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office. The alleged incidents took place on May 9 in the area of Northeast 10th Avenue and 171st Street, in a neighborhood with a large Jewish population.

According to the sheriff’s office, two victims reported that a person in a black vehicle sprayed them with an unknown liquid. Detectives later identified Ayesh as the suspect after reviewing surveillance footage, CBS Miami reported.

An arrest warrant was obtained on June 11, and Ayesh was arrested on June 18 in Plantation by Broward Sheriff’s deputies with assistance from other law enforcement agencies, according to local reports. He was booked into the Broward County Correctional Center and released the following day, according to online records.

The Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office said Ayesh is expected to be charged with two counts of battery with prejudice, a hate-crime-related charge under Florida law. As of Friday, the charges had not yet appeared in Broward or Miami-Dade court records, the Miami Herald reported.

Under Florida law, offenses can be reclassified to a more serious degree when they show evidence of prejudice based on protected characteristics, including religion.

There have been similar incidents earlier this year

The arrest comes months after a similar case in Miami Beach. In February, two South Florida men were arrested after police said they targeted a Jewish man with a water gun in the Mid-Beach area.

In that case, Miami Beach police said the victim was standing near 41st Street and Collins Avenue with other visibly Jewish people when a black SUV pulled up. Police said at least one of the suspects shouted “Jews! Jews!” before spraying the victim with an unknown liquid from a water gun.

The suspects in that case, Michael Dean Emerson, 19, of Coral Springs, and Dominic Angelo Martinez, 18, of Tamarac, were each charged with battery with prejudice, according to Local 10.

The latest case comes amid heightened concern over antisemitic incidents in the United States. The Anti-Defamation League said earlier this month that 2025 was the third-highest year for antisemitic incidents since the organization began tracking them in 1979.

Miami-Dade County is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the United States. A 2024 Jewish community study found that there were approximately 130,100 Jewish residents in Miami-Dade County, accounting for about 5% of the county’s population.

Authorities asked anyone with information about the latest incident to contact Miami-Dade Crime Stoppers at 305-471-TIPS.

On a cloudless November morning, the National Mall – once host to the roaring crowds of Louis Farrakhan’s 1995 Million Man March – filled again, this time with hundreds of thousands of American Jews.

As hostility toward Israel surged in the wake of October 7, 2023, Jews from across the Diaspora came to stand in open solidarity, unafraid, Stars and Stripes grasped in hand, white and blue draped across their shoulders. 

It was a powerful moment. Yet I struggle to recall an equivalent when Jerusalem’s city center or Tel Aviv’s Kaplan Square filled in reciprocated solidarity.

That begs the question: Why the imbalance?

There are some that will answer Israel’s right-wing government, Israeli chauvinism, or even some condescension inherent to the Zionist project. But none captures the truth. 

Israelis care deeply about their Diaspora brethren. From the beaches of Tel Aviv to the jungles of Thailand and Cambodia, the sight of a Diaspora Jew reliably brings a smile to an Israeli’s face – just as it does in reverse. According to an American Jewish Committee survey focusing on millennials, 89% of Israeli Jewish millennials say it is important that the American Jewish community and Israel maintain close ties (with 46% saying it is “very important”).

The issue is not one of sentiment. It is structural. The relationship is unreciprocated – not because of indifference, but because it is asymmetrical.

To put it simply, Israel is the Diaspora’s beloved partner; the Diaspora is Israel’s beloved cousin.

I will spare you the Song of Songs quotations, but the Diaspora’s relationship to Israel is fundamentally romantic. Much like romantic love, the Diaspora experiences Israel’s pain as if it were inflicted on its own body; its mind is constantly filled with thoughts of the object of its affection. Diaspora Jews who writhed in pain on October 7 and have since spent hundreds of hours immersed in Israeli news can attest to this visceral attachment.

The most striking feature of this dynamic is how it distorts reality. Under its spell, Israel’s many flaws are softened, explained away, or simply unseen. In the diasporic imagination, Israel hovers between a political cause and an intimate reality. It is not encountered as a place of mundane routines, bureaucratic compromises, and grinding necessities, but as an object of devotion – almost religious in character.

Familial relations and separate households

And like romantic attachments, the reckoning with reality can be brutal. When the object of affection is revealed in full, flaws and all, the contrast can evoke not disappointment but revulsion. Hell, as the saying goes, has no fury like a woman scorned – and Israel has no enemy quite like those raised to love her.

Israel’s relationship to the Diaspora is closer to that of a family member. The primary concern is not mutual affection but their own interest. There isn’t a lack of love in the relationship, but romance is not the organizing principle. 

After all, Israel does not dream of a thriving Diaspora in the way the Diaspora dreams of Israel. It does not send resources to ensure the Diaspora’s independence, plant forests on its behalf, or necessarily dispatch its children to experience life in its society. The emotional traffic is simply asymmetrical. 

The same poll that showed the relationship also found that among Israeli millennials, only 9% feel a great deal of responsibility to help fellow Jews in the United States, 33% feel some responsibility, 30% feel not much, and 18% feel none.

And yet, when a family member is in crisis, Israel acts out of familial solidarity backed by national power. Whether through emergency airlifts from Yemen or by offering citizenship to persecuted masses, Israel plays the role of the capable relative who intervenes decisively when the rest of the family has nowhere else to go.

Without tracing the historical origins of this dynamic, it is worth examining its consequences.

Those Diaspora Jews who criticize Israel for disregarding the increased danger they have suffered during the Israel-Hamas War are, in large part, victims of miscommunication. Their fundamental criticism is correct: the safety of Diaspora communities was not a primary – perhaps not even a secondary – consideration in Israel’s war planning. 

Why? Because while cousins may love each other deeply, they ultimately run separate households. When forced to make harrowing, split-second decisions to protect its own borders and citizens, Israel acts as a sovereign nation, not a family committee.

Some in the Diaspora, understanding the relationship as at least partially reciprocal, feel shunned. No one expects young Israelis to tour their history in the Lower East Side, but as a partner in a relationship, there is an assumption that they have some voice at the decision-making table.

Like a scorned lover, part of the Diaspora has responded by trying to reassert its independence from an inconsiderate partner – retreating into forms of Jewish life that predate the relationship altogether. One can see this impulse in the small and ultimately doomed revival of Yiddishism, a cultural turn away from Israel as the central axis of Jewish identity.

But if most in the Diaspora were to attempt such a move, they would discover how difficult it is. Many can no longer remember a time when their Jewish lives were not oriented around Israel. Their institutions, education, and emotional investments were built in relation to it.

In that realization lies the uncomfortable truth: the relationship is no longer just asymmetrical but also dependent.

But the asymmetry between Israel and the Diaspora is not just a source of misunderstanding and miscommunication.

Look at the “refuseniks” – the Soviet Jews trapped behind the Iron Curtain, whose long march toward freedom became a cause célèbre in the Diaspora. Their plight galvanized tens of thousands to protest and raised millions of dollars in advocacy and aid. 

In Israel, the street was far less interested.

And yet, when the Iron Curtain finally fell, where did the vast majority of Soviet Jews go? They didn’t flock to the centers of Diaspora activism; they went to Israel. 

The Diaspora provided the passionate devotion of an advocate, while Israel provided the concrete refuge of a family member.

Setting aside the political maneuvering that secured this outcome, there is a profound beauty in how the two entities provided vastly different, yet complementary, lifelines to the oppressed Jewish community.

Is the relationship perfect? Far from it. But what relationships are?

I am the One… who forms light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates evil. Yes, it is I, God, who makes all of these.
 – Isaiah

This story begins on a fall day in 2002. It is September 30, and Sharon Preiser is in Bnei Brak’s Mayanei Hayeshua hospital, about to deliver her 10th child.

Sharon, Uriel, and the Preiser family had come on aliyah several years earlier, from Silver Spring, Maryland, living first in the Ra’anana absorption center and eventually moving to Karnei Shomron.

On that same fateful day, Sgt. Ari Weiss – who was born in Dallas, Texas almost 22 years earlier – was in Nablus with his elite anti-terror engineering unit, Palchan HaNachal. The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) had uncovered the location of Hamas headquarters and sent the unit to capture the building in which it was housed, in the center of the Casbah.

It was now two years since the Second Intifada had been launched by the Palestinians, ending the ill-fated Oslo Accords and resulting in the murder of many hundreds of Israeli civilians at the evil hands of Hamas.

The discovery of the Hamas offices revealed a treasure-trove of valuable information regarding past, present, and future terrorist operations perpetrated and planned by Hamas. The Shin Bet officials had spent a full day and a half going through the computer files, copying some and deleting others, as the unit’s soldiers guarded the building. Many planned acts of terrorism would be prevented – and countless lives saved – as a result of this crucial joint mission.

As dusk approached, the army prepared to leave the site. It was – per the official IDF report on the day’s events – precisely 6:02 p.m., the exact gematria (numerical value) of the name Ari Yehoshua.

Suddenly, shots rang out from the multistory building directly facing Hamas headquarters. Ari was shot as he went to the aid of fellow soldier Shai Chaim, who had been hit first. A bullet pierced Ari’s lung, and he collapsed. The army medic on site tried in vain to save Ari, while Shai was taken by helicopter to nearby Shavei Shomron. After several surgeries, Shai survived, though he still remains paralyzed from the waist down.

The last picture of Ari, a selfie taken just moments before Ari and Shai went on guard duty, shows the two of them with their arms around each other. This dramatic, final picture of comrades – and casualties – in arms hangs on the wall of my office.

It is the third day of the shiva for Ari. Hundreds of visitors, from fellow soldiers to school friends to army officials to political leaders (including dear friend Natan Sharansky, president Moshe Katsav, and IDF chief of staff Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon) have come to our home to pay their respects upon the supreme sacrifice of this unassuming, humble, handsome hero. So many tears, so many traumatic moments are going up and down the emotional scale of pain and pride. The faces blur and the words all jumble together as the consolations pour in.

And then, Uriel Preiser breaks through the crowd and kneels down in front of me. “Can I please see you and Susie privately for a moment?” he whispers.

I look at him with a strange expression. I know Uriel – he had been a member of the shul at the absorption center for several years when I was the rabbi there – but this request catches me completely off guard.

“You mean, I should leave the masses of people to go to a separate room?!” I say.

But Uriel insists, and so I pull Susie away from her group across the yard and we go into my office.

“I’ve come to ask you a halachic question,” says Uriel, and this really has me puzzled. He goes on. “Our son was born three hours before Ari fell; is it permissible to name him after your Ari? After all, he will be named for someone who was alive at his time of birth, which is not the Ashkenazi custom.” (Sephardim do name children after living persons.)

We are stunned, to say the least. I tell Uriel that yes, it is allowed, because by the time the baby is named, it will be after someone who has already died. We are emotionally overwhelmed with joy and sadness at the same time, and all we can do is cry, for a very long time, until we finally say, “Yes, we would be very honored for your son to carry our boy’s name.”

Uriel was not finished. “The brit will be on the day you finish the shiva,” he continues. “If we wait for you to get up (from shiva), would you come to the brit at our yishuv?”

I pause for a moment and then say, “Yes, of course.”

He goes on, “Will you be our son’s sandek [godfather]?”

This really throws me for a loop, and I just stare at Uriel, from another world, until I finally say “Yes.”

But he isn’t quite done yet. “And will you please speak at the meal following?”

And so, when shiva concludes, I walk around the block, as is the custom; I take a quick shower, and a friend drives me to Karnei Shomron. I hold this boy on my lap as he enters the covenant and is given his name.

How Ari became like a second sun son to the Weisses

Along with Susie (who didn’t come to the brit; she was too emotional and was afraid she would ruin the simha!), I formed an unbreakable bond with this first child (of 18 others, so far) to carry Ari’s name.

Each year, at Ari’s yahrzeit, Uriel and son Ari would come to the cemetery. They are kohanim, so they have to stand at a distance, apart from the graves.

But Ari senior’s yahrzeit – 24 Tishrei – is child Ari’s birthday, so we would always have his birthday gift with us and present it to him.

We watched him grow year by year. The gifts began with baby clothes, then toys, then books, then a computer, then a sound system, until, this year, the offer of a car. We were with Ari at his upsherin – his first haircut; at his bar mitzvah; and, tragically, at the untimely death of his beloved mother, just three weeks after the bar mitzvah. Susie became one of his devoted mother figures, and he spent many Shabbatot and holidays with us through the years.

Ari eventually entered the IDF hesder program, combining Torah study with IDF service, much as Ari (may God revenge his blood!) had also chosen to do. Ari chose to be in the Nahal Brigade, following his namesake, and he became a combat medic, serving meritoriously in Gaza. The boy, to our great joy, had become a man.

But – a man needs a woman. And where else would he find her but at Ohel Ari, the synagogue named for our son, the largest of Ra’anana’s 120 synagogues. Over 1,000 people pray there each Shabbat. One of those people – in fact, the person who opened the holy ark for the very first time at the very first Shabbat service when the shul opened – was Ami Ohayon. And Ami had a charming, beautiful, bright daughter named Anaelle, and it was love at first sight.

When the couple came to our house to announce their engagement, we were swept away by a flood of emotions. Of course, we were overjoyed; our “adopted son” Ari had met his intended. But our son Ari would never marry, though he, too, was in love when his life was ended too soon. He would have no children of his own, but Ari was our child, too. He would bring us the naches that was missing, helping to fill the space that was empty.

When Ari and Anaelle were married this past week, Susie and I spiritually walked down the aisle with them, and I had the privilege of giving the final blessing.

It was other-worldly, a meeting of heaven and earth. Because, you see, life is a continuum that goes round and round: a child leaves the world of souls to enter the world of the living, while the man leaves the world of the living to rejoin the world of souls. Both of our Aris were there, I believe, one under the huppah looking lovingly at his new wife, and one among the stars, happily looking down at them both.

Yes, there is light, and there is darkness; there is evil and there is peace. That is the world that God ordained, and we cannot change it. Our task, our challenge, is to endure the darkness while searching for the light and to combat the evil in the belief that peace will finally be ours.  

The writer is the director of the Jewish Outreach Center of Ra’anana.rabbistewart@gmail.com

Friends of Zion (FoZ) founder Dr. Mike Evans said that he intends to speak with US President Donald Trump regarding the importance of the United States recognizing Somaliland during a special award ceremony held at the Friends of Zion Heritage Center in Jerusalem on Thursday.

“It’s time to bless all states that bless Israel,” he said. “Somaliland has shown genuine friendship toward the Jewish state, and I intend to speak with US President Donald Trump about the importance of formal American recognition of Somaliland.”

During the ceremony, held at the Friends of Zion Heritage Center in Jerusalem, Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi received the Friends of Zion Award in honor of the opening of Somaliland’s embassy in Jerusalem and the country’s friendship with Israel.

The ceremony was attended by diplomats, business leaders, Christian leaders, and other distinguished guests from across the globe.

“It is a great honor for me to receive the Friends of Zion Award,” said Abdullahi at the ceremony. “I am deeply moved and grateful for this recognition.”

“This award symbolizes the growing friendship and strengthening ties between Somaliland and Israel. We are committed to further deepening the relationship between our peoples and building a future based on cooperation, mutual respect, and friendship.”

Abdullahi concluded by thanking Evans and the organization for bestowing him with the award.

Somaliland’s new embassy in Jerusalem sends clear message of respect

Evans noted that “at a time when Israel faces complex security and diplomatic challenges, true friendship carries special significance.”

“President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi has demonstrated leadership, courage, and vision in advancing relations with Israel and strengthening the bonds between our peoples,” he said. “The decision to open an embassy in Jerusalem sends a clear message of friendship, mutual respect, and cooperation.”

“On behalf of millions of Friends of Zion supporters around the world, we are proud to present President Abdullahi with the Friends of Zion Award and recognize his commitment to the historic and enduring relationship between the Jewish people and the State of Israel,” he said.

Since its establishment by Shimon Peres, the Friends of Zion Award has been presented to approximately 26 world leaders, including US President Donald Trump, former US President George W. Bush, and former US Vice President Mike Pence.

Mona Khalil, a famed Lebanese turtle conservationist, died of injuries received after an airstrike hit her home in Mansouri, southern Lebanon, according to the Lebanese wildlife conservation group Green Southerners. 

The group eulogized Khalil on its social media, noting that she had for decades “dedicated her life to protecting endangered sea turtles and their nesting habitats.”

“Her work made her one of Lebanon’s most respected voices for marine conservation and biodiversity protection.”

Khalil’s home was reportedly hit by an Israeli airstrike on June 4, where she was seriously injured. Her assistant also suffered injuries and burns in the strike. 

Both were evacuated to a nearby hospital to recieve medical treatement, with Khalil later being transfered to the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) for futher treatement. She succumbed to her injuries on June 19. 

Khalil, 76, was born in Lagos and moved to Mansouri in the early 2000s, shortly before the IDF withdrew from southern Lebanon on the orders of former prime minister Ehud Barak.

Soon after, she opened the Orange House – a bed and breakfast she painted orange (reminiscent of her time living in the Netherlands) meant to act as a source of income to finance her and a friend’s environmentalist work.

She also launched a protection and ecotourism project for loggerhead and green sea turtles on nearby beaches.

In a 2013 interview with The Daily Star, Khalil described the Orange House as a place of tolerance.

“People come because here it’s a very private place,” she said. “It’s a place where nobody is going to judge them, so long as they respect nature. Homosexuals, lesbians, whatever – nobody will judge them here.”

Life-long devotion to protecting sea turtles

After being trained by the Athens-based NGO Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles (MEDASSET), Khalil served for years as a vocal advocate for the conservation of sea turtles, going head-to-head with beachgoers, fishermen, and, in one case, reportedly Hezbollah, in order to ensure that turtles were able to nest during the season without interference.

Khalil retired in the early 2020s. 

“Her death stands as a stark reminder that the ongoing violence in southern Lebanon is exacting a devastating toll on civilians, environmental defenders, and the natural heritage they sought to protect,” Green Southerners wrote. “We extend our deepest condolences to her family, friends, colleagues, and all those who worked alongside her.”

“Mona Khalil’s legacy will endure in the coastline she devoted her life to protecting, the sea turtles she fought to defend, and the values of conservation and stewardship she championed.”

Germany is examining purchasing long-range missiles from Covenant Technologies, a mysterious Israeli manufacturer founded two years ago, to replace the American-made Tomahawk missiles, according to a Sunday report by Politico.

The report mentioned that the missiles were promised to Europe by the Biden administration in order to deter further Russian invasions against European countries, but US President Donald Trump recently decided to cancel the move.

As a response, Berlin decided to purchase Israeli-made missiles as a replacement, with two other Ukrainian companies also among the possible sellers of long-range missiles, according to the report.

Germany has been one of the main clients of Israeli defense products in the last couple of years, with the main deals going to Israel’s “big three”: Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael, and Elbit.

Berline bought the Arrow missiles and Heron TP drones from IAI, the Spike missiles and the Trophy active protection system from Rafael, and it’s on the way to a giant deal for rockets and launchers with Elbit.

What is Covenant Technologies?

Founded by its current CEO, the American-Israeli entrepreneur Michael Kaufman, the company operates in the defense-tech field, has a team composed of several dozen employees that work from its Tel Aviv offices, and focuses on solving the economic munitions problem.

They explained that the high prices of advanced missiles make it difficult to buy them in large quantities, have created shortages even for the US, and have created difficulties in rapidly producing new stock.

To that end, the company is trying to dramatically lower missile production costs by developing a cruise missile with performance comparable to the Tomahawk, at a cost of only several hundred thousand dollars rather than several million.

According to TheMarker, the company has raised more than $200 million from a long list of US funds and investors, and it is still operating in stealth mode.

Company in stealth mode

This means it is not yet known at what stage Covenant’s development is, and there is no information available about the production or testing facilities it owns.

The Germans are trying to buy a limited number of Tomahawks directly from the US, but the production line is currently full of Pentagon orders to replenish stocks after hundreds of such missiles were launched against Iran.

With Berlin aiming to receive cruise missiles as early as 2027, it might connect Covenant with one of Germany’s local defense industries to produce them there, something that Rafael and Elbit have already done.

Transportation Minister Miri Regev announced that her ministry would advance plans for a light rail line connecting Gush Etzion to Jerusalem, in what local leaders described as a historic step for residents south of the capital.

The proposed line will enhance transportation between Gush Etzion and Jerusalem, shortening travel times, easing congestion, and providing residents with a faster public transit option.

The announcement follows years of discussions over how to improve the transportation link between Gush Etzion and Jerusalem, a corridor used daily by residents of the regional council, Beitar Illit, Efrat, and nearby communities. The area currently relies heavily on roads and bus lines, with the Route 60/Tunnels Road corridor serving as one of the main entrances into southern Jerusalem.

According to the Gush Etzion Regional Council, the project would create the first direct rail connection between the region and Jerusalem. The council said the light rail plan would join other transportation upgrades being promoted in the area, including road improvements, expanded traffic routes, and additional public transportation solutions.

No final route, budget, planning timetable, or expected completion date was included in the announcement.

The new light rail will mark a major turning point for the region

Gush Etzion Regional Council head Yaron Rosenthal welcomed the move, calling it “historic news for the residents of the region.”

“This is a historic announcement for the residents of the area and a significant step toward strengthening the natural connection between Gush Etzion and Jerusalem,” Rosenthal said. “The light rail will give residents a faster and more accessible connection to the capital and will provide a response to the major growth of Gush Etzion.”

“We thank Transportation Minister Miri Regev, a true partner in the development of Gush Etzion and in the transportation revolution we are advancing in the region,” he added.

The announcement comes as Jerusalem’s light rail network continues to expand, including work on routes intended to improve access to the city’s southern parts. For Gush Etzion residents, a rail link into Jerusalem would represent a major shift from car- and bus-based commuting to mass transit.

Volkswagen’s plans for a deal with Israeli arms maker Rafael to use its struggling Osnabrueck plant in Germany are being complicated by Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, the German carmaker’s third-largest investor, three people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Qatar, which holds 17% of voting rights in Europe’s biggest carmaker via the Qatar Investment Authority, has raised concerns about the talks between the two companies, citing the Gulf state’s complicated relationship with Israel.

That risks delaying one of Volkswagen’s key projects in its ongoing turnaround, including attempts to offload idle plants through deals with defense firms, as low auto sector demand across the continent bites.

Spokespeople for Volkswagen, the group’s supervisory board, and the QIA all declined to comment on the matter, which has been previously unreported.

Rafael interested in making Iron Dome System parts at plant

Volkswagen has been in talks with defense companies over future prospects for Osnabrueck, where production is currently scheduled to end next year.

State-owned Rafael is interested in manufacturing components for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system at the plant, and has signed a letter of intent to buy the site, sources told Reuters in late April.

The prospect of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund facilitating a deal with an Israeli defense company would place Doha in an uncomfortable position at a time of escalating conflict in the Middle East.

Qatar has no formal diplomatic relations with Israel, and has instead carved out a distinct role as a back-channel mediator between Israel and Hamas, which maintains a political office in Doha.

There is also deep and widespread public support in Qatar for the Palestinian cause, and Doha has long made any normalization of relations with Israel conditional on a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood.

QIA has two seats on VW supervisory board

The QIA is Volkswagen’s third-largest shareholder after the Porsche SE investment vehicle of the family owners and the state of Lower Saxony. It has two seats on the carmaker’s supervisory board.

Two sources said that Lower Saxony, home to Osnabrueck and Volkswagen’s headquarters in Wolfsburg, could be brought on board through a joint venture between Volkswagen and Rafael to reach a solution.

State premier Olaf Lies, who sits on Volkswagen’s supervisory board, declined to comment directly on the Qatar issue, urging Volkswagen to find a long-term solution for the Osnabrueck plant, which employs 2,300 workers.

“I expect the company to live up to this responsibility and present the announced decisions in a timely manner. The state will provide constructive support wherever it is appropriate and possible,” he told Reuters.

Nearly 80 years after Australian airline Qantas began operating the air route from Australia to Britain, it is moving closer to its most ambitious attempt yet, a direct commercial flight from Sydney to London without a layover. 

The Australian airline announced this week that it had chosen London as the first destination for “Project Sunrise,” an initiative designed to connect Australia’s east coast directly with extremely distant cities, first London and later New York. 

Ticket sales are expected to begin in February 2027, and the first departures are planned for October that year, subject to regulatory approvals, completion of flight trials, and aircraft certification.

The flight, expected to last 19 to 21 hours depending on winds and route, would set a new benchmark for long-haul travel and aim to turn one of the world’s most grueling journeys into a single continuous route.

The move has occupied the aviation world for almost a decade. In 2017, Qantas challenged aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Boeing to develop a plane that could fly nonstop from Sydney and Melbourne to London and New York, with a real commercial payload rather than an almost empty demonstration flight. In the end, Airbus was chosen, receiving an order from Qantas for 12 Airbus A350-1000ULR aircraft, a dedicated ultra-long-range version.

Aircraft has more capabilities than standard Airbus A350

The aircraft is not just a standard Airbus A350. It has undergone significant structural changes, most notably the addition of a rear-center fuel tank holding 20,000 liters. That addition extends the aircraft’s range by about 1,000 nautical miles and allows it to fly more than 16,000 kilometers, for up to 22 hours straight. The plane is powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engines and requires a higher maximum takeoff weight and a more complex fuel management system that must transfer fuel between tanks safely over many hours and under changing flight conditions.

The preparations go beyond the aircraft itself. In June 2026, the project’s first test plane, bearing production number MSN707, made its maiden flight in Toulouse, France. The flight lasted 3 hours and 43 minutes, reached an altitude of just over 41,000 feet, and launched a two-month testing and certification campaign. 

During the campaign, the new fuel systems, pumps, sensors, pressures, temperatures, a new cooling system for the aircraft galley, cabin ventilation, and the aircraft’s ability to maintain comfortable conditions even on an exceptionally long flight are being tested.

One of the more interesting engineering challenges is that the test aircraft is not a prototype that will remain in the company’s labs, but rather a production plane ultimately meant to carry passengers. 

As a result, thousands of sensors and measuring systems were installed in it in a way designed not to harm the future passenger cabin. Airbus also placed devices in the cabin that simulate passenger body heat to test how a full cabin would behave on such a long flight, and what would be needed to maintain temperature, ventilation, and comfort for nearly a day in the air.

Cabin layout different from standard flights

The cabin layout is also different from regular flights. Qantas will operate the aircraft in a configuration with just 238 seats, an unusually low seat count for this model. The layout includes 6 first-class suites, 52 business-class seats, 40 premium economy seats, and 140 economy seats, including economy plus. 

More than 40% of the seats will be allocated to premium cabins, a sign of the company’s commercial strategy: to sell not only a flight, but time saved and a more tolerable travel experience on an extraordinarily long journey.

A “wellbeing area” for passengers will also be set up in the middle of the aircraft, between premium economy and economy. The area will include stretch handles, a screen with movement exercises, and a drink-and-snacks station. 

Qantas also plans dedicated lighting based on waking and sleeping cycles, with different light scenes designed to help the body adjust to the destination’s time zone. Meals, sleep times, lighting, and cabin activity are all supposed to fit into a single schedule aimed at reducing jet lag and fatigue after landing.

The scientific foundation for the project has been built over the years. Qantas has worked with researchers at the University of Sydney to examine the effects of meal timing, hydration, exercise, light exposure, and sleep on passengers and crew. 

In 2019, the company already operated direct research flights from New York to Sydney and from London to Sydney, using Boeing 787-9 aircraft with a limited number of passengers and crew. Those flights collected data on alertness, movement, sleep, and passenger experience in order to build a safer and more comfortable operating model for ultra-long-haul flights.

Qantas’ history with long routes began long before the jet age. In 1947, the company began operating the “Kangaroo Route” from Sydney to London, a journey that then took four days and included seven stops, among them Darwin, Singapore, Calcutta, Karachi, Cairo, and Rome. Since then, every new generation of aircraft has removed one more stopover. Project Sunrise is meant to eliminate the last one.

The project’s name is no accident. It refers to Qantas’ “double sunrise” flights during World War II, when the company operated Catalina seaplanes from Western Australia to Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, to maintain an air link to Britain after the fall of Singapore. The flights sometimes carried only three passengers and a small amount of mail, lasted more than 30 hours, and passengers saw the sun rise twice during the journey. In terms of time spent in the air, they are still considered among the longest commercial flights in history.

In the modern era, the active record belongs to Singapore Airlines on the New York JFK-Singapore route, a distance of about 15,349 kilometers, flown on an Airbus A350-900ULR, with an average duration of more than 18 hours. 

Next is the Newark-Singapore route, also operated by Singapore Airlines, at about 15,344 kilometers. Other notable long routes today include Auckland to Doha on Qatar Airways, Perth to London on Qantas, Melbourne to Dallas on Qantas, Perth to Paris, New York to Auckland, Auckland to Dubai, Los Angeles to Singapore, and San Francisco to Bengaluru.

Qantas already has commercial experience on an exceptionally long route: Perth to London, which began operating in 2018 and is considered one of the world’s longest nonstop flights. But Sydney to London is different. 

The distance is greater, the flight paths are more complex, and operations depend on tailwinds, the seasons, airspace conditions, and fuel availability. According to the company, polar routes will be used in some cases, especially during the Northern Hemisphere winter.

The project’s economic model is no less challenging than the engineering. Qantas will need to persuade passengers to pay more for nonstop flights. The company believes business travelers and premium passengers will be willing to pay a premium for time savings, the elimination of a stopover, and reduced risk of delays, missed connecting flights, or a prolonged stay at an intermediate airport. 

On existing routes such as Perth to London, Qantas has already succeeded in charging more for flights with a stop, and it hopes to replicate that model here as well.

On the other hand, a 20-hour flight is still a tough test for passengers and crews. Even with smart lighting, improved seats, a timed menu, and a stretching area, the human body was not designed for nearly a full day of sitting in an aircraft cabin. The operation will require meticulous crew scheduling, rest areas for pilots and flight attendants, fatigue monitoring, medical management for at-risk passengers, and preparation for medical emergencies far from suitable airports.

The project also depends on regulatory approvals and global operational stability. Disruptions in airspace, wars, extreme weather, or insurance restrictions could alter routes and reduce time savings. 

Qantas has already had to change routes on existing flights because of tensions in the Middle East, and the company will need to maintain a high degree of flexibility in the new project as well.

If the Sydney-to-London flight launches as planned, it will be more than just another airline route. It will mark a new stage in competition between airlines, between transit flights through hubs in the Gulf and Asia, and direct point-to-point connections. For years, airlines such as Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Singapore Airlines turned stopovers into a successful global model. Qantas is now trying to bring some passengers back to a different model, fewer airports, less waiting, fewer aircraft changes, and more consecutive hours in the air.

The success of Project Sunrise could also open additional routes. After London, New York is planned, and later, there could be additional destinations in North America, Europe, Africa, and South America, depending on demand and the number of aircraft delivered. 

In a world where aircraft are becoming more fuel-efficient, engines stronger, and passenger cabins designed around the human body rather than only around seat count, the world’s longest flight could become a regular commercial service rather than a technological showcase.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of visiting many countries around the world as part of my public, media, and diplomatic activities. Yet my first visit to the United Arab Emirates was truly exceptional and left a profound impression.

It was an opportunity to see firsthand how a relatively young country had, within a few decades, transformed itself into an economic, technological, and tourism powerhouse while maintaining stability, personal security, and respect for the individual.

As president of the Israel Radio Communications Association, I had the honor, together with my wife, of attending a festive dinner with Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed bin Sultan Al Qasimi, son of the Ruler of Sharjah and president of the UAE’s communications association, along with several other senior and distinguished figures.

The welcome was warm and moving. From the very first moment, there was a clear sense of respect and appreciation for the guests from Israel.

The conversations around a table laden with meats and salads were open, substantive, and friendly. Many of those present expressed genuine interest in Israel, its technological achievements, and its ability to address complex challenges in security, the economy, and innovation.

It was clear that beyond the headlines and formal agreements, there was also a genuine willingness to deepen ties between the two peoples and build bridges of cooperation.

One of the things that impressed me most was the country’s efficiency. From the moment we entered the UAE, it was apparent that its public service systems operated swiftly and professionally. Entry procedures were brief, orderly, and courteous.

Everywhere we visited, including hotels, restaurants, shopping centers, and tourist attractions, we encountered professional, polite, and welcoming service.

The United Arab Emirates invests enormous resources in developing advanced infrastructure. Its modern highways, efficient transportation systems, innovative business centers, and impressive architecture reflect long-term vision and professional management.

A model of efficiency and modern governance

The country is not content with its present achievements. It is planning decades ahead in fields such as artificial intelligence, energy, education, and health care.

Another area that stood out was personal security. Residents and visitors alike enjoy an exceptionally strong sense of safety. Crime rates are low, and law enforcement is firm and effective.

Penalties for serious offenses are severe, and in many cases foreign nationals convicted of crimes are deported. At the same time, an advanced technological network of cameras and monitoring systems helps law enforcement authorities maintain public order and deter criminal activity.

Technology is integrated into nearly every aspect of daily life. Digital systems provide rapid access to government services, while innovative projects are transforming the country’s cities.

This approach reflects a belief that innovation is not a luxury but an essential condition for growth and success.

No discussion of a visit to the United Arab Emirates would be complete without acknowledging the historic importance of the Abraham Accords. These agreements did more than open air routes and commercial channels. 

They created a new reality in the Middle East. They demonstrated that Israel and Arab countries can cooperate on the basis of shared interests, mutual respect, and a desire to build a better future for their citizens.

In my conversations with senior officials and public figures in the Emirates, I repeatedly heard a clear message: There is a strong desire to expand cooperation in the fields of economics, science, medicine, communications, and technology.

Many viewed Israel as a valuable partner and expressed hope that relations would continue to deepen despite the region’s challenges.

The visit left me with a sense of optimism. It showed that a different reality can be built in the Middle East, one based on cooperation rather than confrontation, development rather than stagnation, and hope rather than suspicion.

The United Arab Emirates is an example of a country that has successfully combined tradition with progress, national identity with international openness, and stability with a constant drive for renewal.

Since that first visit, and the additional visits that followed, I have carried with me warm memories of the gracious hospitality, the fascinating encounters, and the feeling that a new chapter had opened in relations between our peoples.

The more human, economic, and cultural ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates deepen, the stronger the foundations of peace and stability will become throughout the region.

The writer is CEO of Radios 100FM, an honorary consul and deputy dean of the Consular Diplomatic Corps, president of the Israel Radio Communications Association, and a former Israel Army Radio monitor and NBC News television correspondent.